Skip to main content

Full text of "The raw truth about milk : how science is destroying nature's nearly perfect food and why animal protein and animal fat in your diet can save your life"

See other formats


The RAW TRUTH 
about MILK 



Formerly The Milk Book 
-now revised and expanded- 



“How Science Is Destroying 
Nature’s Nearly Perfect Food 
And Why Animal Protein 
And Animal Fat In Your Diet 
Can Save Your Life ” 



The RAW TRUTH 
about MILK 



Formerly The Milk Book 
-now revised and expanded- 

“How Science Is Destroying 
Nature y s Nearly Perfect Food 
And Why Animal Protein 
And Animal Fat In Your Diet 
Can Save Your Life ” 



by William Campbell Douglass II, MD 




Rhino Publishing, S.A. 
www.RhinoPublish.com 
Republic of Panama 



The RAW TRUTH 
about MILK 



Formerly The Milk Book 
-now revised and expanded- 



“How Science Is Destroying Nature’s Nearly Perfect Food 
And Why Animal Protein And Animal Fat In Your Diet 
Can Save Your Life” 



Copyright © 1984 - 2007 by William Campbell Douglass II, MD 
All rights reserved. 

This edition is published by Rhino Publishing. 

For information, contact Christian Martin Desharnais 
through Rhino Publishing website, www.RhinoPublish.com 

Published in the Republic of Panama. 

Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no 
part of this book may be reproduced, stored in or introduced 
into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any 
means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or 
otherwise), without permission in writing from both the 
copyright owner and the publisher, except by reviewer who 
may quote brief passages in a review. 

Paperback Edition 
ISBN 978-9962-636-73-1 

Cover Art by Marisa Gomar 

Book designed and illustrations by Lourdes Jaramillo (lourja@cwpanama.net) 

Please, visit Rhino’s website for other publications from 
Dr. William Campbell Douglass 
www.rhinopublish.com 
RHINO PUBLISHING, S.A. 

World Trade Center 
Panama, 00832-2483 
Republic of Panama 

This publication is designed to provide accurate and 
authoritative information in regard to the subject matter 
covered. It is sold with the understanding that the publisher is 
not engaged in rendering medical, or other professional 
service. If medical advice or other expert assistance is required, 
the services of a competent professional person should be 
sought. This book is not a substitute for medical advice. 



DEDICATION 

to Jack Mathis 



CONTENTS 



Chapter Page 

Acknowledgements ix 

Preface xi 

Foreword to the Third Edition xv 

Foreword xix 

Introduction xxi 

I. Yellow Cows — The History of Milk 1 

II. Udder Destruction, Part 1 9 

III. Udder Destruction, Part II 33 

IV. Udder Propaganda 49 

V. A Cow is Not a Cat — "Certified Milk" 67 

VI. Milking the Good Guys, Alta-Dena 87 

VII. Udder Menace — Homogenization of Milk 107 

VIII. Udder Folly 117 

IX. Udder Perfection 131 

X. "This Greasy Counterfeit" 179 

XI. Udderly Effective, Milk as Medicine 201 

XII. Let 'Em Eat Steak 221 

XIII. Vegetarianism, Environmentalism and the 

Search for Purity 243 

XIV. Udderly Unique 249 

XV. Ice Cream 261 

XVI. Soy and International Control of your 

Diet and your Health 275 



viii 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



Chapter Page 

Appendix 1 295 

Appendix II 297 

Appendix III 299 

Appendix IV 301 

Appendix V 303 

Appendix VI 311 

About the Author 313 

Index 315 



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 



Dr. H. Leon Abrams, Jr. for unselfishly opening his files 
to me. 

Jack Mathis, without whose help this book could not 
have been written. 

Harold Steuve, the Steuve family and the staff of Alta- 
Dena Dairy for their help and inspiration. 

Paul Virgin of the Alta-Dena Dairy for his time and advice. 

Dee Cochran for typing the manuscript from my 
illegible writing. 

Dr. Derrick B. Jelliffee for allowing me to quote from his 
landmark work Human Milk in the Modern World. 

Dr. Paul Fleiss, a pediatrician ahead of his time, for his 
assistance. 

Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, my fearless leader in the move- 
ment to resist the homogenization of American 
medicine. 

Dr. Robert Pottenger, of the Price-Pottenger Foundation, 
for allowing me access to the History of Randleigh Farms. 

Ed O'Neal for his patience and hard work. 

Hugh Allen for his bright idea. 

Col. McCrary for his generosity. 

A1 Mason and Virginia Wilder for cleaning up my grammar. 

Bari Cane, listed last only because she is the only addition 
to the fourth edition. She has vastly improved the book 
with her insights and I am very grateful. 



PREFACE 



Don't skim over this book about milk. The health and 
wealth of this nation are inextricably tied into our agri- 
culture. Our greatest agricultural loss today is due to our 
senseless destruction of fresh milk through pasteuriza- 
tion, ultra-pasteurization, and now ultra high tempera- 
ture pasteurization which turns a great food into a white, 
"milk flavored drink," about as nutritious as milk of mag- 
nesia. 

Don't skim over the footnotes either.* If you do, 
you'll miss a lot of good stuff. 

With proper understanding of milk, and its destruc- 
tive effects (when heat-treated) and the remarkable thera- 
peutic effects when used raw, we can cut billions of dollars 
off our medical bills, make ourselves infinitely more 
healthy, and actually raise the I.Q. of our children. With 
smarter children we will add greatly to our scientific and 
cultural wealth. I do not consider it an exaggeration to 
say that the nation's destiny will be affected by what we 
do about milk.** If you doubt this, read Chapter III first. 
This chapter should convince you that a switch to 
unprocessed, that is unpasteurized, milk should be a na- 
tional priority. 

If you listen to the advertising of the dairy industry, 
one gets the impression that milk is the perfect food and, 
if you don't stoke your children with at least a quart of 
milk a day (each), you are guilty of child abuse or at least 
neglect. 



** 



Just testing you 

And about soy protein - read the new chapter beginning on page 
275 . 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



xii 



On the other hand, some nutritionists, medical or- 
ganizations, government agencies, and doctors warn of 
the dangers of fat and cholesterol in milk and milk prod- 
ucts. We are told that "Mr. Cholesterol" is going to get us 
if we don't restrict our intake of dairy products, espe- 
cially eggs, meat, and demon milk. 

A small group of nutritionists are so anti-milk that 
they state flatly: No one should drink milk after eighteen 
months of age-period. This is the "milk is only for babies" 
school of nutrition. 

Another small but growing faction of nutritionists 
says that the problem with milk is American milk. That is, 
milk is okay when used the way nature made it, but it's 
changed into a useless, and actually dangerous product 
when processed by modern dairy methods. This group, 
composed of some experienced nutritionists, presents 
evidence that pasteurized, homogenized milk actually 
causes the very disease it is supposed to help prevent 
tooth decay! They also point out that milk may cause ar- 
teriosclerosis and thus heart attack, not because of the fat 
or cholesterol content, but because of the way the milk is 
altered by the pasteurization and homogenization proc- 
esses. They ask, "Is milk the perfect food, or is it, because 
of modern processing methods, a major health hazard?" 

There are advocates of goat milk, camel milk, yak 
milk, mithan milk, skim milk, and the non-milk, soy 
milk. One physician /nutritionist says the only way to 
drink milk is to take pure cream and dilute it with 
water.* 

Milk is as American as Coca-Cola and at least half 
the population drinks milk. Most of the rest ingest it in 
one form or another -cheese, bakery goods, and in the 
process of cooking in general. But is American processed 
milk a nutritional stalwart that helps build strong bodies 



* That's not a bad idea if you can't get raw milk. 



Preface 



xiii 



and good teeth, or is it, like Coca-Cola, just another form 
of junk food? 

We will cover a vast array of subjects in this book 
such as raw milk, medical milk therapy, human milk, 
margarine and butter, the sudden infant death syndrome, 
and the great yogurt rip-off, but the major thrust of this 
book will be to warn you of the dangers of pasteurized milk and 
to inform you about the incredible health benefits to be gained 
from drinking fresh, untreated, unpasteurized, in other words, 
raw milk. We will attempt to convince you that raw 
certified milk will keep you free of disease, improve your 
sex life, give you more energy and stamina, and extend 
your life by at least ten years. 

That's a big order. Read on — this book may change 
your life. 



FOREWORD TO THE THIRD EDITION 



Although written in 1984, The Milk Book is as timely 
today as ever. I have made a few changes, especially 
concerning coconut and palm oil. These palm oils are 
good for you. What I said in 1984 seemed correct, with- 
out a shadow of a doubt. When I started studying 
nutrition 35 years ago, I didn't learn it all over night. I 
was a victim of the saturated-fat-is-bad school.* Most 
doctors, dieticians, and epidemiologists (staticians) still 
believe it. 

Only recently has science confirmed what we first 
said more than twenty years ago in this book: Adding 
vitamin D to milk is a risky business. It is entirely unne- 
cessary to "fortify" milk with this highly toxic substance. 

Not too long ago, the New England Journal of Medi- 
cine reported eight cases of vitamin D intoxication result- 
ing from excessive fortification of commercial 
(pasteurized) milk. Symptoms included anorexia, weight 
loss, constipation, weakness, fatigue, inability to think 
correctly, and something they described as "failure to 
thrive." You wouldn’t catch all that stuff from my Great- 
Grandma Bell’s milk! 

According to the article, the artificial baby formulas 
were even worse than dairy milk. None of the formulas 
tested had the amount of vitamin D stated on the label; 
almost all contained excessive amounts of this 
potentially toxic vitamin.** 

The anti-cholesterol propaganda blitz has increased 
dramatically since this book was first published. Chil- 
dren are now being denied whole milk because pedia- 
tricians are obsessed with the cholesterol myth. These 



* Nobody's perfect 

** Toxic, that is, when given in large doses. ( These two need to be 
at the bottom of the previous page.) 



XVI 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



same gutless wonders don't say anything about children 
drinking half-a-dozen bottles of Coca-Cola a day, starting 
before breakfast. But kids can't get a decent glass of 
unprocessed milk! 

Even if Mom buys whole milk, thinking it is better 
for her growing child than that sickly blue stuff called 
skim, she can’t win, because all of the commercial milk is 
homogenized. I'm convinced that homogenization is 
even more detrimental to the nutritional quality of milk 
than the heat processing called pasteurization. (See 
Chapter VII — "Udder Menace.") 

Meat is in the doghouse and the animal rights move- 
ment has heated up to a point that we may all be forced 
to become vegetarians. If one of your friends (or chil- 
dren) has succumbed to the anti-meat hysteria, have him 
read Chapter XII — "Let 'Em Eat Steak." 

And let me also put in a plug here for Chapter X, 
"This Greasy Counterfeit." It really infuriates me that you 
simply cannot find butter in a restaurant anymore; it's 
always some kind of "spread."* (I guess they're ashamed 
to admit its margarine.) For the full story of the shameful 
grease that is masquerading as God's butter, please read 
Chapter X. 

The longest chapter in the book is the one on breast- 
feeding (Chapter IX — "Udder Perfection"). I am honored 
that my writings had at least a little influence, along with 
the work of the La Leche League and the efforts of my 
great good friend. Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, on the in- 
crease in breast-feeding in this country. 

You might remember that this movement was met 
with stony silence by the pediatricians — until they real- 
ized they were looking pretty anti-nature and did a 180 - 
degree turnaround. Now they claim credit for the revival 
of breast feeding! 



But the best restaurants still use butter. 



Foreword to the Third Edition 



xvn 



But that battle also is not over. America's mothers 
are backsliding. The number of mothers breast-feeding is 
dropping precipitously, because it's not convenient or 
compatible with the image of the modern, liberated 
woman, I guess. The artificial-baby-formula companies 
are gearing up for another propaganda blitz against feed- 
ing au natural. I've even seen articles questioning the 
safety or desirability of feeding babies natural breast 
milk! Can you believe that? 

And now, even the doctors are backsliding again. 
Some university expert noticed that breast-fed babies 
weighed less than bottle-fed ones. Well then, since a fat 
baby is a healthy baby, baby formula should be started as 
soon as possible after birth. I have always had a pre- 
judice against pediatricians. They are, in this land of the 
free, passionately in favor of forced immunization, forced 
fluoride to children, forced confiscation of guns in the 
home as a protection against killers and thieves - forced, 
forced, forced; it is part of their training. They are, in 
general, public health fanatics and a danger to the health 
of you and your family. 

They were taught, as was I, that you can measure 
the development of a baby by his weight gain. This is 
true within reason but, like most doctors, they go over- 
board and abandon common sense. This obsessive 
concern for weight gain is transmitted to the mother and 
this results in overfeeding and childhood obesity . A lean 
baby is a healthy baby; a fat baby, proudly shown to the 
neighbors with resultant joy all round, has childhood 
obesity thanks to the pediatrician. Is it any wonder that 
we have become a nation of obesitrons? 

Most readers of this book have never seen, much 
less tasted, natural milk from a cow. I’m talking about the 
straight stuff, with the cream left where it belongs — on 
the top of the milk — and no vitamin D or other artificial 
elements added. 



xviii 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



Once you have read THE RAW TRUTH ABOUT 
MILK, I hope you will want to drink only natural, 
unpasteurized, unhomogenized milk yourself. This is 
easier said than done. At the time of this writing, there is 
only one dairy in the entire United States producing 
unpasteurized, unhomogenized milk: Alta Dena Dairy in 
Chino, California. Sadly, their days appear to be 
numbered.* 

The media, in collusion with the doctors, the 
dieticians, the American Heart Association, and the food 
industry, have done such a colossal job of indoctrinating 
the American people on the supposed dangers of 
cholesterol and the drinking of unpasteurized ("raw") 
milk that it is no longer available in most states. 

What can you do? Let me suggest five things: 

(1) . Contact your state legislators and demand that 

they permit you the freedom to choose what sort 
of milk you will drink. 

(2) . Ditto your federal senators and representatives. 

(3) . Tell the FDA to stop acting like commissars and 

start acting like what they're supposed to be, 
public servants. 

(4) . Buy a cow and milk it yourself. 

(5) . If that's too much trouble, make friends with 

someone who owns a cow and come to some 
private arrangement with him. 

In conclusion, let me note that writing The Milk 
Book was the most fun I have ever had with a word 
processor. I am even more pleased with this book now, 
because it has endured the test of time. I hope you will 
agree — and will urge your own children to read it, too. 



There has been progress since 1980 but it's slow. There are a few 
more states that have legalized clean milk and have regular 
inspections, in this stormy year of 2007. 



FOREWORD 



This important book should be read by two groups 
of people — those who drink milk and those who don't. 
Both groups will learn that, "Is milk good or bad for 
you?" is the wrong question. The right question is, "What 
kind of milk should you drink?" 

William Campbell Douglass, M.D., in his eminently 
readable and authoritatively documented book, teaches 
us a valuable lesson in semantics - the opposite of "dirty" 
is not "pasteurized" or "homogenized". The opposite of 
"dirty" is "clean". 

And clean milk means raw certified milk! 

Even more remarkable than the message of this book 
is the messenger. Douglass belongs to the profession of 
Modern Medicine, a group noted, over the past five dec- 
ades, for its belief in "better living through chemistry." 

Reared in a tradition that reveres the fluoridation of 
our water supplies and eagerly anticipates the irradiation 
of our food supplies, impeccably credentialed Dr. 
Douglass is practically unique in Modern Medicine in ar- 
guing for a clean milk supply. 

Don't look for other MD's to join Bill Douglass' cru- 
sade against milk pollution. Habituated to creating mini- 
Love Canals in the blood streams of their private 
patients, modern physicians are unwilling to marshal the 
righteous indignation and careful reasoning necessary to 
protest against pollution of the public's water, food and 
milk. 



XX 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



Not only is Douglass' case against pasteurization 
and homogenization compelling, but this book helps 
clarify many other issues (vegetarianism vs. meat eating; 
the cholesterol controversy; goat's milk vs. cow's milk), 
and offers valuable insights into osteoporosis, tall stature 
of Americans, cancer, and vitamins. Bill Douglass' breezy 
style — complete with hilarious footnotes — adds the di- 
mension of entertainment to a fine educational experi- 
ence. 

Robert S. Mendelsohn, M.D. 

Author, "Confessions of a Medical Heretic" 

August, 1984 



INTRODUCTION 



Factual and funny, witty and blisteringly honest... 
filled with truth and hilarity — all the stuff that usually 
only fiction is made of. 

A vital food resource destroyed through greed, igno- 
rance, vindictiveness and fanatical prejudice. 

It is all here in this uncommonly readable book. The 
talented Dr. Douglass has described the destructive ef- 
fects of pasteurization of milk and the utter ruthlessness 
and dishonesty of state government protecting a favored 
industry. 

The story he tells of the State of California and its 
persecution of the Alta-Dena Dairies is unique in the an- 
nals of state government. 

The battle is almost won — by the panzers of pas- 
teurization. At the time of this writing, the federal gov- 
ernment has moved in to crush Alta Dena and Mathis 
Dairies. A regulation is being proposed that will make 
the sale of raw milk illegal nationwide. The producers of 
fresh, clean milk will be classified with heroin, marijuana 
and cocaine peddlers, and, probably more severely dealt 
with. 

The American Medical Association, the American 
Veterinary Association, all of the State health depart- 
ments, the American Dietetic Association, the American 
Academy of Pediatrics, the milk lobby, and those con- 
summate meddlers and anti-free enterprise fanatics, 
Ralph Nader and Dr. Sidney Wolf, are arrayed against the 
only two clean dairies left in the entire United States to 
the detriment of the well being and free choice of the 
people of America. 



XXII 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



To the rescue, just in time, comes this factual, funny, 
first; the only publication in print that tells the true and 
complete story about milk. The book will probably be 
suppressed. You are unlikely to find it in your local 
bookstore. But, if a million copies of this book can be dis- 
tributed, the battle for clean, fresh milk can still be won. 

Buy this book by the case from the publisher. Give 
them to your friends and relatives for birthdays and 
Christmas (or Hanukkah, Bastille Day, Labor Day, Fourth 
of July, St. Patrick's Day, or National Pork Week). Send a 
copy to your representatives at the local, state and 
federal level. Send a copy to the President. If he receives 
a freight car load of them, maybe it will get his attention. 
Time is running out. But, the war isn't over until it's 

over. 

Clean, unprocessed milk is essential to health, espe- 
cially for our children and the elderly. Only you, and tens 
of thousands of other caring Americans can save this vi- 
tal food, this "life's blood" given by God to His children 
for vibrant good health. 

Turn to the last page in the book for your ammunition. 
Order more copies than you can afford because you can't afford 
not to! 

Maureen Kennedy Salaman 

President, National Health Federation 



Chapter I 

YELLOW COWS 

THE HISTORY OF MILK 



One of the most revolutionary developments in hu- 
man history was the invention of milking animals for 
food by the ancients of Southwestern Asia. It's hard to 
understand why no one else thought of it for hundreds of 
years. South American Indians had an ample supply of 
milk available in the llama but never took advantage of 
it. North American Indians had the buffalo, but she 
doesn't milk easily.* The Chinese and Japanese are pretty 
smart, but they didn't think of it either. Milking was in- 
troduced there only within the last century. 

The goat was probably the first animal to have the 
honor of being milked. Horses were too big, dogs too 
small and cats wouldn't put up with it. But domesticated 
horses now produce great milk -- better than cows. See 
Chapter XIII. 

The earliest pictures of milking show the milker sit- 
ting directly behind the cow. Not a smart idea. Man learns 
everything the hard way. As milking caught on, the tech- 
nique was extended to almost all domesticated animals 
except the pig.** 

The revolutionary adoption of milking domes- 
ticated animals for human food enormously increased 
man's protein supply, and milk with grain became the 
standard diet of most of the world. Until very recently, 
the peasants of Scotland ate little else. Doctor Samuel 
Johnson made the comment that oats are food for horses 
in England and food for men in Scotland. To which the 
Scots replied, "And where else will you find such horses 
and such men?" 



* Too ornery. 

** Did you every try to milk a pig? 



2 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



When the English came to Jamestown in 1611, they 
brought their cows with them. One can imagine the as- 
tonishment of the Indians on first encountering these 
strange, docile, short-haired "buffalo". With the milk, 
they brought tuberculosis, brucellosis (undulant fever), 
typhoid, and other diseases the Indians didn't need. 
Don't misunderstand me. It wasn't the fault of the milk. 
It was diseased people who contaminated the milk that 
caused the problems. We'll explain that later. 

During the Renaissance period, the farmers painted 
their cows yellow to stimulate milk production.* Cows and 
their cousins, such as the ox, have played an important role 
throughout history.** If you are really interested in the cow's 
point of view on history, religion, and the arts, read The 
Cow Book by Marc Gallant (Alfred A. Knopf, N.Y., 1983).*** 

Milk remained an honest product for over two hun- 
dred years. Sure, it was contaminated, but so was every- 
thing else. Then the first of the milk manipulators came 
along- Gale Borden. By condensing milk, Borden 
discovered that it would keep for longer periods due to 
its high sugar content. He patented the process and it 
has been downhill for milk ever since. 

But the original culprit was probably the Italian 
biologist Lazzaro Spallanzini**** who popularized the 
preserving of food through heating in 1765. 

1873 was a fateful year for milk in the United States. 
Dr. Abraham Jacobi publicly urged the boiling or 
cooking of all milk used in infant feeding because of the 
frightful carnage of babies at that time from infectious 
diseases. At times the death toll reached the unbelievable 
figure of 65%, and the annual loss of babies throughout 
the country, largely due to unsanitary conditions with 
consequent fatal infections, exceeded 250,000. 



* It didn't work. 

** They did most of the heavy work. 

*** It's a wonderful book. 

**** So the Pasteur Institute should be called the Spallanzini Institute. 




Painting Cows Yellow to Increase Milk Production 



4 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



Cows in the late 1800's were fed on garbage. The 
Commissioner of the New York State Health Department, 
Dr. Herman E. Hillaboe, reported that cows were milked 
in a mixture of manure and mud, dust, dirt, filth, and 
disease-germs were as much the total product that peo- 
ple drank as was the milk itself. On farms, pails that 
were used to carry slop to the pigs were also used to 
convey milk to human consumers. 

The New York philanthropist, Nathan Straus, lost a 
child from contaminated milk (diphtheria). This prompted 
him to start his famous "milk stations" where only cooked 
(pasteurized) milk was supplied to the poor of the city. The 
effectiveness of heat-treated milk in reducing mortality in 
the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries is indisput- 
able. In a seven year period, starting in 1897, the death rate 
among children in New York City dropped from 42% to 22% 
with the only discernible change being the pasteurization, 
heat-treatment of milk.* 

The first successful Tuberculin test for dairy herds 
began in 1890. In 1893, under the direction of Dr. Henry 
L. Coit of Newark, New Jersey, there began a serious ef- 
fort to control the cleanliness of milk. Dr. Coit deserves 
some sort of medal for his pioneer work in cleaning up 
the milk industry. This certification process was started 
in Essex County, New Jersey, rapidly spreading around 
the country, and in 1907 the certification of milk, the in- 
suring by a group of concerned physicians that the milk 
was pure enough to drink, was generally standard. 

Pasteurization began in 1895, and thus began the un- 
fortunate habit of not worrying about cleanliness in the 
dairy because, with the heating of milk, cleanliness was 
no longer considered necessary. The bacteria in the milk 



* There was another "discernable change" but no one realized its 
importance until later - the advent of the automobile and the 
consequent disappearance of cow poop from daily life. More 
below. 



Yellow Cows 



5 



would simply be boiled, killing the germs, and then the 
milk could be sold in this adulterated form. It has been 
sold that way ever since, and, because of pasteurization, tu- 
berculosis was not completely eliminated from cows in 
the United States until 1941. If the United States Public 
Health Service and the American Medical Association 
had done the responsible thing and backed the various 
medical milk commissions' efforts to keep milk clean, tu- 
berculosis could have been eliminated from American 
cows many decades sooner. 

Dr. Henry Coif, the father of certified milk, recog- 
nized clearly that top quality milk depended upon get- 
ting the milk fresh from the cow and not heating it as is 
done in the pasteurization process. He recognized that 
the best way to present the best and most nutritious 
product to the public was to deliver it as made by nature 
from a completely clean environment. 

In 1891, Coit received an even stronger impetus to 
crusade for clean milk. His first son, only two years old, 
died from contaminated milk. It took six years for Dr. 
Coit to talk the first dairyman, Steven Francisco, into pro- 
ducing "certified milk." The term "certified" meant that 
the milk was inspected by a board of physicians and was 
certified by them to meet rigid standards of cleanliness. 

By 1904, thirteen years after the tragic death of 
Coit's son, certified dairies were being inspected regu- 
larly. But these progressive dairies represented only a 
tiny percentage of milk production, and the battle for 
disease-free milk was only beginning. It was estimated in 
1905 that 35% of the twenty-four million dairy cattle had 
tuberculosis and over 10% had brucellosis. Today's raw 
certified milk must not have a germ count higher than 
10,000 per cubic centimeter. In 1911 the milk being served 
in hospitals often had a count as high as twenty million 
germs per cubic centimeter. 

The Medical Milk Commission, the group of physi- 
cians that inspected and "certified" the raw milk as meet- 



6 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



ing the rigid standards of safety, grew rapidly across the 
country, and, by 1930, clean, unpasteurized, raw milk 
was generally available across the country. 

If this healthy trend had continued, pasteurized milk 
would have never been accepted by the American people. Cer- 
tification of raw milk by medical experts was rapidly 
eliminating the disease problem from milk. They had 
proven that tampering with milk by heat-treatment pas- 
teurization was entirely unnecessary. The people did not 
trust pasteurization for many reasons, the main one be- 
ing the nutrition factor. Hall and Trout, in their book Milk 
Pasteurization, admit that, due to the deep-seated distrust 
of pasteurization, "one is astounded that the process ever 
was successfully introduced." But the pasteurization fa- 
natics were determined to eliminate raw milk from the 
dinner table. They had accepted pasteurization as a veri- 
table religion, and, although the Medical Milk Commis- 
sion had proven beyond a doubt that clean milk, not 
heated milk, was the answer to the problem, they moved 
forward with a relentless propaganda blitz. The devious 
war fought against raw certified milk will be discussed in 
detail in Chapters IV, V, and VI. 

Human milk also has a long and interesting history. 
In Sparta, 400 B.C., it was decreed that mothers must 
breast feed their babies. The Koran dictates that, "mothers 
shall suckle their children for two years." Caesar ridiculed 
the mothers of Rome who retained wet nurses for their 
children. Early American Indians believed that the longer 
a child received breast milk, the longer it would live.* It 
was not uncommon for Indian "babies" to be suckled 
until the age of nine years. A half-century ago, Eskimos 
were known to nurse their babies up to 15 years.** 



* They were, in general, right. See Chapter IX. 

** Now that's carrying it a bit far. The boy skateboards in: "Hey 
Mom, how about breakfast?" 



Yellow Cows 



7 



In the 18th century, there was a great faith in the 
healing and preventive aspects of human milk. Finland 
went so far as to penalize a non-nursing mother whose 
child died during the first six months of life. In Chapter 
IX, you'll see why that wasn't a bad idea. 

The vogue-conscious French almost destroyed their 
own race in the 18th century when bottle feeding became 
stylish. A French physician at the time said, "Ladies of 
quality did not breast feed so they could have more time 
to dress, receive and pay visits, attend public shows, and 
spend the night at their beloved cards." 2 

The history of milk is the history of civilization. 
Without it there would be no civilization. 

REFERENCES 

1. La Leche League of New Zealand. 

2. Ibid. 



Chapter II 

UDDER DESTRUCTION 

PART I 

This is going to be an important chapter. It's the 
heart of the book. We'll divide it into Part I and Part II.* 

A friend of mine in Florida was talking to the wife of 
a dairyman at a party. My friend, conscious of the myriad 
of problems associated with pasteurized, homogenized 
milk, asked her if their dairy would supply her family 
with raw milk. 

The woman blanched white and stiffened. "Certainly 
not. We would never touch the stuff!" The dairyman's wife 
was offended and embarrassed that such a question 
would be asked in polite company. 

When someone that close to milk production has 
such an emotional and deep-rooted prejudice against 
fresh milk, the pasteurizers, along with most public 
health departments and doctors, have indeed convinced 
the people that heat-treatment of milk, called pasteuriza- 
tion, is as essential as fluoridation of water. But, as with 
fluoridation, not everybody is convinced. A small band of 
determined and dedicated dairy farmers and nutrition- 
ists continue to work for the return of fresh, untreated 
"raw" milk. 

Initially, the motivation for pasteurization was any- 
thing but altruistic. Unscrupulous dairymen knew that if 
they heated the milk it wouldn't sour, a harmless but of- 
ten gastronomically undesirable state. Heat treatment 
enabled them to avoid expensive sanitary procedures 
and to deliver the milk to unsuspecting consumers ap- 
parently "fresh." The milk was anything but fresh; it was 



At page 29, take the rest of the day off. 



10 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



dead. Having killed most of the enzymes and altered the 
protein and fat through heat, the milk didn't sour-it rotted 
as any dead animal tissue will. However, the dead milk 
was usually drunk before the rotting process took place, 
and no one was the wiser. In spite of modern techniques 
of pasteurization, pasteurized milk is still dead milk 
which will rot on standing. 

People knowledgeable in dairy science at the turn of 
the century were opposed to heat treatment of milk. They 
realized that one of nature's almost perfect foods was be- 
ing altered from a natural food to a processed, unnatural 
food. During this period, called the "dark era" by pas- 
teurization zealots, conscientious nutritionists and dairy 
experts strongly opposed pasteurization, realizing that 
commercial interests were only concerned about shelf life 
and not nutritious, unadulterated milk. 

"Cholera infantum" was a dreaded disease of chil- 
dren in the early 20th century. Five thousand babies died 
annually from this summer diarrhea. It was found to be 
caused by milk contaminated by an excessive number of 
"ordinary dirt bacteria," reported Dr. Park of the New 
York City Health Department — just plain dirty milk. 

But instead of requiring the dairies to clean up their 
act, they turned to heat treatment of milk. They 
eradicated the dreaded "cholera infantum"-but at a terrible 
price: a steady increase in crib death, infantile allergy, 
colitis, heart disease, stroke, and sexual impotency, to 
name a few. 

As a temporary expedient, while the technologies of 
sanitation engineering and refrigeration were develop- 
ing, heat treatment pasteurization was better than noth- 
ing. Although the milk was inferior and would cause 
degenerative diseases later in life, at least it wouldn't kill 
the children. 

But the milk producers are clinging to out-dated 
methods. In an age of sophisticated sanitation, where 
even horse liniment and toilet paper are made under 



Udder Destruction 



11 



remarkably clean conditions, the milk industry leans 
heavily on heat treatment of milk and milk products to 
cover up sloppy production methods. This is sanitation at 
the wrong end. The dairymen continue to look backward 
toward Pasteur and Spallanzini rather than forward 
toward Coit, Mathis, and Steuve. They continue to 
destroy the food value of milk for economic expediency 
when, technologically, it is no longer necessary. 

Initially, the dairy industry itself also fought the 
compulsory heating of milk . 1 No one likes to change the 
system. It costs money. Finally, losing in court, the dairymen 
caved in and joined the pasteurization movement. Today, 
locked into the heat pasteurization system, they will fight 
equally hard to avoid moving forward to fresh, unheated, 
milk production. The industry continues to "protect" us 
against disease conditions of one-hundred years ago,* and 
in the process, they destroy the value of the milk. 

In the book Milk Pasteurization, Hall and Trout say, 
"Perhaps no other single innovation has made such an 
impact on a food industry as the heat treatment of milk. 
Within the span of one hundred years, the milk industry 
evolved from almost total obscurity to be the giant of the 
food industry. The flowering of the milk industry was 
made possible by the parboiling, or pasteurization as it is 
now called, of milk." 

The parboiling, or heating of milk, had no effect on 
the incidence of tuberculosis caused by milk.** The inci- 
dence of brucellosis, or undulant fever, contrary to popu- 
lar opinion, was really not affected by the pasteurization 
process. Brucellosis is not contracted through milk, but 
by association directly with animals. The farmer or other 



* Ask your doctor how many cases of tuberculosis he saw last year. 

** You can actually drink milk from a tubercular cow with 
impunity. The blood-membrane barrier prevents the tubercule 
bacteria from passing into the milk. It was tuberculous milkers 
who infected the milk by coughing into it. 



12 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



adult milking the cow would often get brucellosis, but 
his children, who drank most of the milk , seldom got 
the disease. 

The so-called pasteurization process is far from new 
and was done long before Pasteur. In 1782, the Swedish 
scientist Scheele used heat (pasteurization) treatment to pre- 
serve vinegar. In fact, the earliest recorded incidence of the 
pasteurization process was actually in 1765 by Spallanzini 
who preserved meat through the heating process. 

In 1824, a professor of obstetrics at the University of 
Pennsylvania, William Dewees, recommended heating 
milk to the boiling point then cooling for infant feeding. 
He said, "In hot weather, it is true, the tendency to de- 
composition is diminished by boiling the milk; but as all 
the advantages which may result in the process, can be 
procured without its being absolutely boiled, it should 
never be had recourse to." 

Although Pasteur was given the credit for the par- 
boiling method and it takes its name of pasteurization 
from him, the record does not show that Louis Pasteur 
ever pasteurized milk.* Pasteur succeeded in developing 
a system of heat application to control fermentation and 
thus the preservation of wine. The wine industry was 
greatly benefited, as he had discovered the method of 
preventing wine spoilage. He also succeeded in applying 
this principle to the preservation of beer. Pasteur does in- 
deed deserve credit, as the basic method applied to milk 
is the same as that for beer.** 

A German, Soxhlat, about twenty years after 
Pasteur's "discovery," applied Pasteur's method to the 
pasteurization of milk for infant feeding. The process 
was introduced in the United States in about 1889. 

Nathan Straus, a wealthy New York philanthropist, 
was appalled at the mortality of children being fed raw 



** 



I doubt he ever drank it either. 

As with milk, unpasteurized beer is better. 



Udder Destruction 



13 



milk. He established milk depots in the city of New York 
which offered heat-treated milk to children. The death 
rate from raw milk fell dramatically in New York as a re- 
sult of Straus' effort. Straus spread the gospel around the 
United States and, in fact, the entire world. He was the 
single most influential man in making pasteurization a 
universally used and recognized procedure. 

Hall and Trout in their book Milk Pasteurization are 
extremely laudatory of the pasteurization process. They 
obviously feel that pasteurization is one of the greatest 
boons ever to come to mankind. The authors list former 
objections to pasteurization of milk and clearly imply 
that none of these objections are currently valid. We will 
list some of these "former objections" and make some 
comment on them. 

• Pasteurization is an excuse for the sale of dirty milk. 

• Pasteurization may be used to mask low-quality milk. 

• Pasteurization promotes carelessness and discourages 
the effort to produce clean milk. 

• Compulsory pasteurization would diminish the incen- 
tive to clean milk production. 

• Heat destroys a great number of bacteria in milk and 
thus conceals the evidence of dirt. 

• Pasteurization impairs the flavor of milk. 

• Pasteurization diminishes the nutrient value of milk. 

• The milk is devitalized. 

• Pasteurization diminishes vitamin content. 

• Pasteurization destroys Vitamin C. 



14 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



• Calcium and other minerals are precipitated and made 
unavailable by pasteurization. 

• Milk enzymes are destroyed. 

• Infants do not develop well on pasteurized milk. 

• Children and infants thrive better on raw milk. 

• Pasteurized milk is more likely to lead to decay in 
teeth. 

• Pasteurized milk is more likely to be constipating. 

• Pasteurization destroys the creaming ability of milk. 

• Pasteurization influences the composition of milk. 

• Pasteurization destroys the souring bacteria of milk so 
that milk instead of souring normally will putrefy if 
kept long enough. 

• Pasteurization kills the bacilli in milk and causes it to 
decompose when exposed to air. ("bacterial corpse"). 

• Pasteurization destroys beneficient enzymes, antibod- 
ies, and hormones which take the life out of milk. 

• Pasteurization may be carelessly done. Therefore, it is 
not infallible. 

• Pasteurized milk may diminish resistance to disease 
(especially in young babies). 

• The death from tuberculosis remains uniformly lower 
in rural areas where much milk is drunk raw than in 
cities where all milk is pasteurized. 



Udder Destruction 



15 



• Compulsory pasteurization would remove the stimulus 
to eradicate diseased animals from milking herds. 

• Pasteurized milk interferes with the proper develop- 
ment of the teeth and predisposes to dental caries. 

• Pasteurization would lead to an increase in infant mor- 
tality. 

• Pasteurization gives a false sense of security. 

There are many others we will not list, but the inter- 
esting and important point here is that all of these 
"former objections "to pasteurized milk are just as true 
today as they were when they were listed by Hall and 
Trout fifteen years ago . Hall and Trout go on in glowing 
terms to tell us how three generations have thrived on 
pasteurized milk and enjoy "radiant health". But they 
admit, "With so many beliefs unfavorable to the pasteuri- 
zation of milk, one is astounded that the process was 
ever introduced. The final acceptance of pasteurization 
by the consumer is little short of phenomenal." 

The state of Massachusetts in 1908, recognizing that 
pasteurized milk was no longer a vital food, passed a law 
that required milk subjected to heating to be labeled 
"heated milk" in one-inch black letters against a white 
background. 

By about 1950 raw certified milk became essentially 
non-existent in this country, except in three states. The 
public was thoroughly convinced, through massive ad- 
vertising over the years, that their original suspicions 
about pasteurized milk were unfounded, and that the 
pasteurization process was protecting them from ram- 
pant disease conditions. Hall and Trout eulogized, "Pas- 
teurization of milk has attained a near perfection within 
a half-century. Perhaps the greatest achievement lies in 
the acclaim of people of many nations for pasteurized 
household milk." 



16 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



Although Hall and Trout are extremely laudatory, in 
fact wildly enthusiastic, about the merits of the pasteuri- 
zation of milk, they make some interesting comments 
when comparing the keeping quality of the two types of 
milk. They say, "The influence ... on the keeping quality 
after pasteurization is often exaggerated. The chief or- 
ganisms responsible for spoilage of pasteurized milk... 
originate from pasteurization contamination ..." 

They go on to quote other authors who concluded 
that the number of bacteria found in the milk gave abso- 
lutely no indication of how well pasteurized milk would 
keep. As mentioned, the bacteria responsible for spoilage 
later are not the same ones found in raw milk. 

The authors state, apologetically, "The effect of heat 
for minimum pasteurization intensity has generally little 
significance, except of course, in the destruction of cer- 
tain bacteria and enzymes." These "certain bacteria and 
enzymes" are absolutely vital to the production of nutri- 
tious and safe milk. They then go on to admit, because of 
the complexity of milk fat, that we don't really know how 
much change takes place due to the pasteurization proc- 
ess. They say, "...milk fat may be involved in many of the 
unknown effects of heat. Data bearing on the speculative 
effects of heat on the fat itself are scarcely existent." 

The protein casein is also affected by pasteurization. 
The effects of this on the human body are unknown. 
They also report that the chief serum proteins of milk, 
lactalbumin and lactoglobulin, are both adversely af- 
fected by high heat treatment of milk. Although the au- 
thors admit to the deficiencies of certain vitamins and 
minerals found in pasteurized milk, they turn to other 
authorities to reassure us that the changes are negligible. 
They quote Kay et al, "...the original suggestion that pas- 
teurization seriously diminished the nutritive value of 
milk has been proved conclusively to be ill-founded." 

Enzymes are still little understood as far as their 
contribution to human nutrition is concerned, but un- 



Udder Destruction 



17 



doubtedly they play an important part. The authors 
make little of enzymes and report that a large number of 
enzymes are completely destroyed in the process of pas- 
teurization. They attribute little importance to this and 
point out that the complete destruction of the enzyme 
phosphatase is one method of testing to see if the milk 
has been adequately pasteurized. Phosphatase is essen- 
tial for the absorption of calcium, blit the complete destruc- 
tion of phosphatase is the aim of pasteurization! 

The chemistry of calcium in human nutrition is much 
better understood today than when the phosphatase test 
was introduced. The "decalcification" of milk which is fed to 
children may be a major cause of osteoporosis* later in life. 
We now know that low calcium absorption in healthy 
women may cause a loss of spinal bone mass as early as 
age 20 (2). Such women may lose 50% or more of their 
bone mass by the age of 70.** 

Other factors which contribute to this literal dissolv- 
ing of the skeleton are the high phosphates in cola drinks 
and many food diets, such as the Scarsdale Diet, which is 
notoriously low in calcium. 

When you add other calcium wasting problems such 
as Vitamin D and C deficiency, alcoholism, antacids, anti- 
coagulants, anticonvulsants, barbiturates, cortisone, and 
diuretics, it's no wonder grandma is falling on her face 
from a fractured hip.*** 

The enzyme lipase is also totally destroyed by the 
pasteurization process. Lipase aids in the digestion of 
fats. Homogenization, the pulverizing of the milk fat. 



* A thinning of the bones, especially in older women, which leads 
to fractures, great pain, and premature death. 

** That's why fractured hips are a growth industry for the 
orthopedists. 

*** Give her at least a pint of raw milk every day and she will pro- 
bably never have a fractured hip. She won't waste away either. 



18 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



causes more lipase to be released into the milk. So, Hall 
and Trout tell us, "...the complete destruction of lipase 
(is) imperative; otherwise the milk becomes rancid." 

No lipase for fat digestion. No phosphatase for cal- 
cium absorption. No galactase for milk sugar digestion. 
No catalase, diastase, lipase, or peroxidase, but the authors 
conclude, "The healthfulness of people enjoying high per 
capita consumption of pasteurized milk attest to the 
maintenance of its nutritive value." 

Hall and Trout tell us that, "the Vitamin C content of 
milk can play an important role in human nutrition." 
They are referring to pasteurized milk. They claim that a 
quart of pasteurized milk contains sixteen milligrams of 
Vitamin C, one-fourth of the official requirement. How- 
ever, something they did not know at the time was the ef- 
fect that fluorescent light has on milk. Milk in almost all 
grocery stores is placed in open bins with fluorescent 
lighting. This fluorescent lighting has been shown to de- 
stroy half of the Vitamin C content of the milk . 3 This loss, 
along with the pasteurization loss, does not make pas- 
teurized milk a good source of Vitamin C.* 

In the late 30's, the system of "clarification" was 
added to the milk processing business. The clarifier is 
used basically to clean up debris, manure, pus, and other 
foreign material that is in the milk as a result of sloppy 
manufacturing methods. 

Hall and Trout state, "The centrifugal clarification of 
milk was early frowned upon by officials who suspected 
the process would be used to clean up a dirty milk sup- 
ply." But they say, "Research showed that clarification 



* This is now an anachronism as very little milk is sold in glass 
bottles in the U.S. Does the cardboard change the flavor? I don't 
know but since you shouldn't be drinking processed milk in the 
first place, what difference does it make? Come to think of it. the 
gallon containers are sold in translucent plastic containers. So the 
UV problem is still with us. 



Udder Destruction 



19 



was necessary to prevent the sedimentation found, even 
in aseptically produced milk, which was the result of set- 
tling out of leucocytes in milk which had been homog- 
enized." The average reader would not know what 
leucocytes are, so we will tell you: Pus -- that's right, just 
plain pus. With the onset of homogenization, a very un- 
desirable situation had developed. The leucocytes (pus) 
were noted to settle to the bottom of the bottle and make 
a greyish oil-like sludge. One cannot sell milk with a pus 
layer, and, as almost all milk is now homogenized, some- 
thing had to be done to get this out, so the clarification 
process was instituted. The sediment removed by the 
clarification process is called in the milk trade, slime-and 
that is exactly what it is.* 

One reason for the accumulation of pus and other 
slime elements in the milk is the current method of 
delivering milk to the processing centers. The milk may 
be picked up at the farm daily, but it goes into a holding 
tank and is only bottled three times a week. It may be 
four or five days old when finally bottled.** If it wasn't 
"clarified" and pasteurized at the processing center, it 
would be a lethal brew on delivery to the supermarket. 

Raw certified milk could be kept four to five days 
with absolutely no damage to the public because it is 
clean when milked. But it is usually delivered in less 
than twenty-four hours from milking to the consumer. 

In one investigation detailing the "heat treatment" of 
milk, it was revealed that not just one simple heating 
takes place. Milk is heated over again with each process. 
In clarification, the milk may be heated to 135° Fahrenheit. 
In the filtering process, the milk is heated again to about 



* A process called vacuration removes undesirable odors from dirty 
milk. That's why those in the business call the vacurator a "fart 
snatcher." 

** The date on the carton is calculated from the time of bottling, not 
the time of milking. 



20 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



100° Fahrenheit. In the bactofugation process (method of 
removing bacteria), the milk is again heated to 170° 
Fahrenheit. With deaeration a vacuum treatment is used 
in which the milk is treated in two vacuum chambers, the 
first at 175° Fahrenheit, the second at 100°-152° Fahrenheit.* 
These heats may vary according to the system used, but 
the milk is heated over and over again. It is hard to 
imagine this milk resembling the original product after 
all of this steam-cleaning. 

In the old days, doctors and scientists had a clear 
understanding of the milk problem. It's peculiar how old 
truths have to be rediscovered. In 1926, an ordinance was 
proposed in Missouri that would have prohibited the sale 
of raw milk. The judge in the case said:** 

"A great volume of evidence was offered regarding the 
relative qualities of raw milk and pasteurized milk. A 
large number of practicing physicians, chemists, bacte- 
riologists, and users of milk were sworn. The evidence 
conclusively shows that pasteurization altered the 
character of the milk, and the testimony of far the 
greater number of physicians and bacteriologists who 
testified was that pasteurization impairs its quality; 
that it destroys some of the vitamins in the milk and 
impairs others; that it destroys the lactic acid which 
causes milk to sour; that souring is a process of self- 
preservation; and lactic acid is an important element in 
counteracting pernicious bacteria; that pasteurization 
disintegrates the salts, such as calcium, iron, and phos- 
phates, causes them to lose their organic quality and 
makes them more difficult, if not impossible, to assimi- 
late; that pasteurization caused constipation and indi- 
gestion particularly among babies and children; that it 
breaks down the enzymes, though other physicians 
said there was sufficient of that element in the diges- 



* Bulk storage of milk has led to off-flavor (tainting). Food 
Engineering Magazine has the answer: "Blanching", which means 
heating the milk again! 

** Judges can be boring, but this one isn't. Read on. 



Udder Destruction 



21 



tive organisms of persons who drink milk. It was 
shown that doctors generally require raw milk for 
ailing babies and children; that children who could not 
flourish on pasteurized milk usually improved in 
health and flourished on raw milk. There was other 
evidence to show that one reason for the satisfactory 
healthfulness of raw milk is that it increases the vitality 
and resistance of a child because it is easier to assimi- 
late; that the destruction of pathogenic germs by 
pasteurization was more than counterbalanced by the 
superior quality of raw milk. 

In addition to the professional evidence offered, the re- 
lators offered the testimony of a number of mothers 
and other raisers of children, and they uniformly testi- 
fied that children who were not healthful when fed on 
pasteurized milk were healthful when fed raw milk. 

The respondents made no attempt to counteract that 
testimony, but countenance it was unimportant com- 
ing from non-professional source. But it was the opin- 
ion of several Physicians that actual experience' 
particularly clinical experience, was more valuable 
than laboratory tests in determining the effects of milk 
upon the system." 

The court decided that the ordinance prohibiting the 
sale of raw milk was in conflict with the law and should 
be invalidated. * 

A letter written to the Journal of the American Vet- 
erinarian Medical Association by Dr. Edward T. Henry, 
D.V.M., contained the usual arguments that pasteurized 
homogenized milk is as nutritious as fresh milk. Dr. 
Henry says, "... Let me lay to rest the myth that pasteu- 
rization lowers the nutrition of milk. True, several en- 
zymes and maybe a vitamin or two are destroyed, but 
one should not be relying totally on milk for those con- 
stituents. Pasteurization has very little, if any, effect on 
the nutritional value of dairy products. " 



Case number and judge's name are unknown. 



22 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



Dr. Henry raises the specter in his letter of the host 
of diseases one may contract if one drinks raw certified 
milk. He states, "... the consuming public can be guaran- 
teed that the milk they are purchasing, if pasteurized, is 
free of disease-causing microorganisms, such as brucello- 
sis, tuberculosis, paratyphoid fever, typhoid fever, salmo- 
nellosis, shigellosis, Q fever, just to name a few." 

Some of these diseases, such as Q fever and brucel- 
losis, never did come from contaminated milk.** 

"When consuming raw milk", he continued, "who 
can be absolutely sure it is free of the foregoing microor- 
ganisms? These are diseases that can kill and some peo- 
ple want to allow use of raw milk -- all in the name of 
freedom of choice. Even with all the testing of both cows 
and milk, people who drink raw milk are exposing them- 
selves to potential life-threatening diseases." 

This technique of pointing with horror at non- 
existent problems has undoubtedly discouraged many 
people from drinking unprocessed milk. The many years 
of consumption of raw certified milk by tens of 
thousands proves beyond a doubt, that the terrible 
specter raised by Dr. Henry simply does not exist. 

But the Council on Public Health and Regulatory 
Veterinary Medicine continued the myth by passing a 
resolution in 1979 condemning the use of raw milk on the 
basis that it was unsafe, "Only pasteurized milk and milk 
products should be sold for human consumption." This 
resolution indicates the rampant ignorance and prejudice 
existing concerning the modern production of unprocess- 
ed milk. This ignorance and prejudice is not only present 
in the veterinary field, but is almost universally found in 
the field of human medicine. 



* * 



Q fever is an airborne virus contracted through the respiratory 
system. Brucillosis comes from animal contact, not from milk. 
How many times do I have to tell you that? 



Udder Destruction 



23 



Back in the days of our Pilgrim Fathers tomatoes 
were considered poisonous. One iconoclastic gentleman 
ate a tomato in public to disprove the superstition. Eve- 
ryone thought he was committing suicide. He survived 
the experiment, but it didn't change anybody's mind.* 

The tomato story has its modern counterpart. Paul 
Virgin of the Alta-Dena Dairy drinks raw milk on televi- 
sion to prove that raw milk contains no evil spirits. In 
contrast, homogenized, pasteurized milk is an unhealthy 
product as shown by many tests. The avoidance of nutri- 
tious, safe, raw, certified milk today because of previous 
disease conditions that no longer exist is as absurd as it 
would be not to eat tomatoes in the 20th century because 
they were considered to be poisonous in the 17th 
century. 

It is surprising that pasteurization caught on, as 
most knowledgeable milk scientists at the time did all 
they could to ferret out the pasteurizers who operated il- 
legally and undercover. But the milk lobby eventually 
won and made the process respectable. In 1947 Michigan 
passed a compulsory pasteurization law and the rest of 
the nation rapidly capitulated. Junk milk, by 1960, was 
compulsory in almost every state. 

The dairy industry is committing suicide. Milk con- 
sumption is decreasing relative to the growth of the 
population.** The reasons are: 

1) The false propaganda about cholesterol and fat 
causing hardening of the arteries (heart attacks, 
strokes) promulgated by the news media with 
the blessing of organized medicine. 

2) Many people simply don't like the taste of heat- 
processed milk. One reason pasteurized milk 



* If he had been a woman, they would have burned her at the 
stake for witchcraft. 

** From 1970 to 1980 whole milk consumption decreased 33%. 



24 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



doesn't taste like milk back on the farm is because 
of the practice of "holding over" milk. The milk is 
placed in large "raw milk silos" until ready for 
processing. It may stay there for days. This favors 
the growth of bacteria called psychrotrophics. 4 
These bacteria grow quite nicely at the refrigera- 
tion temperatures of the silos used for storage. 
The psychrotrophics produce enzymes that are 
extremely heat-resistant and easily survive the 
pasteurization process. That's why your pas- 
teurized milk may taste bitter, unclean, oily, 
chalky, metallic or medicinal.* 

3) The serious allergies that heat-processed milk 
has caused among children and adults alike. Pas- 
teurized milk allergy, caused by altering the milk 
proteins through heating, has caused a major 
health problem in the United States. 

4) The growing realization among consumers that 
processed food, including pasteurized homog- 
enized milk, is a health hazard. 

In this modern world, yesterday's crime, such as 
abortion, becomes today's essential service. Pasteurization 
was a crime at the turn of the century and the pasteurizer 
had to lurk in the dark to kill milk. Although all of the 
sophisticated biochemical knowledge that we have today 
was not available to them, milk experts knew that heating 
milk, as in the pasteurization process, was changing a live 
food into a dead food and was simply a cop-out for the 
dairy farmer. It's much cheaper to make dirty milk and 
then kill most of the bacteria by heating than to maintain 
a clean dairy with clean cows and clean milk. 

Figure 1 on the following page would indicate that 
since pasteurization of milk, infant mortality has steadily 
declined. In 1908 there were seventy-five infant deaths 



Yuck. No wonder people have stopped drinking milk. 



Infant mortality rate, per 1000 Infant mortality rate, per 1000 



75 




Fig. II 



969-70 

972 



26 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



per thousand. In 1970 there were only ten. But, if this 
graph is expanded, as in Figure 2, it is immediately obvi- 
ous that pasteurization probably had little to do with the 
drop in infant mortality. There had been a steady decline 
in infant mortality since the middle 1700's. 

The greatest contribution to eradication of infectious 
diseases was the automobile. The automobile has given 
us a lot of pollution but it replaced a far worse pollution - 
the horse. 

It's hard for modern man to imagine how filthy the 
big cities were when everything in the city moved by 
horse. People, rich and poor, virtually waded through a 
sea of horse manure. With the manure came flies-billions 
of them. With the flies came infectious diseases, the ma- 
jor cause of death until the mid twentieth century. Only 
the hardy survived, which is probably the main reason 
man eventually triumphed over infections. (That has 
changed and infectious disease is a popular specialty 
again.) But the elimination of the horse from areas of 
high population density was a major factor. It is also 
interesting to note, returning to Figure 2, that the boxed- 
in area also represents the age of immunization and 
antibiotic therapy. The period of greatest usage of 
antibiotics has been from 1950 to the present. As the 
graph illustrates, the rate of decline in infant mortality 
has been actually less since the advent of the miracle 
drugs. 

Dr. J.M. Prucha, professor emeritus in dairy bacteri- 
ology, University of Illinois, said forty years ago, "There 
was much opposition to pasteurization of milk and at best, it 
was looked upon as a temporary expedient to obtain a safe milk 
supply until the time when the dairy industry would learn to 
produce clean and safe milk." 5 (Emphasis added.) 

The propaganda that pasteurized milk is safer than 
fresh raw certified milk can be easily put to rest. In 1945 
there were four hundred fifty cases of infectious disease 
caused by raw milk . There were one thousand four hun- 



Udder Destruction 



27 



dred ninety two cases caused by pasteurized milk . 6 
Knowing that statistics don't lie and statisticians [do, 
let's] look at the figures from a different angle. There was 
one case of disease for every twelve million four hundred 
thousand quarts of pasteurized milk consumed and one 
case of disease for every eighteen million nine hundred 
thousand quarts of raw milk consumed.' In other words, 
you could drink six million five hundred thousand more 
quarts of raw milk than pasteurized without getting sick! 

In 1945 there was an epidemic of food poisoning in 
Phoenix, Arizona . 8 The official report reads, "Pasteuriza- 
tion charts... show milk was properly pasteurized and 
leads to the assumption that toxin was produced in milk 
while it was stored without refrigeration and was not 
completely destroyed by pasteurization" -three hundred very 
sick people from pasteurized milk. 

Great Bend, Kansas, same year, had four hundred 
sixty-eight cases of gastroenteritis from pasteurized 
milk. This was traced to "unsanitary conditions in dairies, 
un-sterilized bottles, and improper pasteurization." Nine 
died. 

June, 1982. Over one hundred seventy-two people in 
a three state area in the Southeast were stricken with an 
intestinal infection. Over one hundred required hospitali- 
zation. The infection, which caused severe diarrhea, fe- 
ver, nausea, abdominal pain, and headache, was caused 
by pasteurized milk. 9 

Does this happen today? Of course it does, but doc- 
tors and parents are unlikely to blame milk because, after 
all, it is pasteurized. They will blame Junior's gastroenteri- 
tis and diarrhea on everything but contaminated pas- 
teurized milk.* 

The toxin from bacteria largely responsible for 
diarrhea, the enterotoxin, is largely unaffected by pas- 



The next time you have diarrhea, test your pasteurized milk. See 
Appendix II for the method. 



28 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



teurization. 10 If raw milk is contaminated to a significant 
degree you can tell it instantly from the smell and taste. 
But pasteurized milk may be seriously contaminated 
with no tell-tale odor at all. 

Consumer Reports of January, 1974, revealed how 
shoddy milk production is in the United States. Out of 
one hundred twenty-five samples of milk and milk prod- 
ucts, forty-four percent proved to be in violation of state 
regulations. Consumer Reports concluded, "The quality 
of a number of the dairy products in this study was little 
short of deplorable." Consumer's Union, reporting in 
June, 1982, stated that fecal bacteria, called coliforms, 
were found in many samples tested. Some had counts as 
high as 2200 organisms per cubic centimeter. Raw certi- 
fied milk must contain no more than 10 coliforms per cu- 
bic centimeter.* 

As we stated earlier and confirmed by Consumer 
Reports, the "former objections" to pasteurized milk are 
just as valid today: 

a) Pasteurization is an excuse for the sale of dirty 

milk. 

b) Pasteurization may be used to mask low quality 
milk. 

c) Pasteurization promotes carelessness and dis- 

courages the effort to produce clean milk. 

Professor Fosgate, of the Dairy Science Department 
of the University of Georgia, spoke out on pasteurization, 
"Pasteurization has been preached as a one-hundred per- 
cent safeguard for milk. This simply is not true. If milk 
gets contaminated today, the chances are that it will be after 
pasteurization. Pasteurized milk and raw milk are equally sus- 
ceptible to contamination by pathogenic bacteria..." (Empha- 
sis added.) 



The same standard is supposed to apply to pasteurized milk, but 
who's checking? 



Udder Destruction 



29 



Fosgate is probably too conservative. Raw milk con- 
tains enzymes and antibodies, destroyed by pasteuriza- 
tion, that make it less susceptible to bacterial conta- 
mination. But, Dr. Fosgate stands up for Rosebud and the 
rest of America's milk-producing ruminants, "The dairy 
cow has been sadly maligned by the dairy and food 
industry in general. She has been pictured as a veritable 
'Typhoid Mary' for all of the ills of man, including the 
common cold, when actually, the reverse is true." The full 
import of this statement will be brought out in the 
chapter on milk as a therapeutic agent in disease. 

Something else just occurred to me (Year 2006 - I'm 
a little slow). You don't hear much about disease outbreaks 
from milk. Usually they aren't really "outbreaks," but 
individual cases of diarrhea that are not reported. The 
patient, young or old, has a bout of diarrhea and gets 
over it. Pasteurized milk often isn't even suspected in 
these cases. But if it is investigated, it is always pas- 
teurized milk that was "inadequately pasteurized." * 

Other than the greater infectious potential of pas- 
teurized milk, are there other disadvantages to processed 
milk? Enough to fill a few chapters. But before we go on 
to other disadvantages of pasteurized milk, let's look at 
an example of the amazing protective qualities of raw 
milk, even when it's dirty. 

Jack Mathis, President of Atlanta's Mathis Dairy, was 
invited to inspect the dairy at the Atlanta City Prison 
Farm and make suggestions for modernization. He found 
the entire operation to be indescribably filthy. "It looked 
more like an outhouse than a milking parlor," was his 
first observation. The pathetic cows were in obvious 
pain, being milked by machines entirely unattended. 

Manure on the cow's hindquarters was running over 
the teats, the milking apparatus, and into the milk. From 
the milking machine, the milk ran into an open ten- 



How they would know that, I do not know. 




Cows Don't Like Being Blamed for Dirty Milk. 



Udder Destruction 



31 



gallon can by hose. "You couldn't see the top of the can 
for the flies," Mathis said. "It was like a bee hive with 
flies walking in and out of the can." 

Jack Mathis assumed that the milk was for the 
prison farm pigs, but it wasn't. It went directly to a 
cooler in the prison dining hall, complete with cow and 
fly manure and fly carcases. It was simply strained 
through the cooler and then drunk by the prisoners. 

No one had gotten sick from the milk in ten years. 
What a case for raw milk! 



REFERENCES 

1. Bartlett, R.W., The Milk Industry, pp. 254, Ronald Press 
Company, New York City, New York, 1946. 

2. Medical Month, January 1964, pp. 43. 

3. "Public Health Report," U.S. Public Health Service, 1945. 

4. Dairy Record, February, 1982. 

5. Milk Facts, Milk Industry Foundation, New York City, 
1946-47. 

6. Ibid. 

7. Fosgate letter. 

8. Darlington, pp. 21 and 19. 

9. The Atlanta Journal, Atlanta, Georgia, September 24, 
1982. 

10. AAMMC Annual Conference, Kansas City, Missouri, May 
1976. 



Chapter III 

UDDER DESTRUCTION 

PART II 



One Friday morning when I was in medical school, a 
group of eight farm workers who had been spraying veg- 
etables were brought to the emergency department of the 
university hospital. They were all dead but one. The one 
survivor lived only because he had been thrown in the 
truck upside down. The others died of pulmonary edema 
- drowning from fluid in their lungs. The one lucky 
worker drained his lungs spontaneously because of being 
upside down and so he survived. 

The chemical causing this disaster is known as an 
organo-phosphate. You wouldn't want that in your milk, 
would you? Many dairies are now feeding an organo- 
phosphate to their cattle. This chemical, known as 
lincophos, ends up in the manure and poisons the larvae 
of flies. Isn't that clever? Why maintain a clean barn 
when you can just dose your cows with organo- 
phosphate and let the chemically contaminated manure 
poison the maggots? What does this dosing with 
chemicals do to the cow and the cow's milk? The FDA 
says it does nothing. They've told us that before.* 

The average commercial dairy farmer is interested 
primarily in production figures rather than quality. Those 
farmers who are sincerely concerned about the drastic 
decline in the quality of milk can do little about it until 
the public demands a better product. The farmer sells to 
a vast consortium and has no control over the final product 
that may look the same as the milk from his cow, but bio- 
chemically, enzymatically, and nutritionally is about as close 
to real milk as "non-dairy creamer" is to real cream. 



* Remember DES, swine flue vaccine, Oraflex and Viiox? 



34 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



The farmer wants pituitary-giant freaks that produce 
their body weight in milk every ten days. But the milk 
from these milk-producing superstars may contain exces- 
sive amounts of pituitary hormones. 

The pituitary excretion affecting growth is called the 
"growth hormone." This hormone may account for the 
fact that each succeeding generation of Americans for the 
past fifty years has been taller than their parents. This ex- 
cess height, although associated with handsomeness and 
health in our culture, may actually be a sign of abnormal 
pituitary function due to excess pituitary growth hor- 
mone from milk. Bigger is not necessarily healthier. 

The independent dairy farmer producing raw, certi- 
fied milk is interested in quality as well as quantity. He 
knows that these abnormal milk producers are prone to 
be unhealthy and subject to infection requiring the fre- 
quent use of antibiotics. As he doesn’t cover mistakes and 
unsanitary production methods by heat-treating the milk, 
he is more likely to own normal, healthy cows producing 
less milk but without excess pituitary and other hor- 
mones. 

The pituitary also stimulates the production of sex 
hormones. Could this be contributing to the vast array of 
sexual problems we see today? Sexual dysfunction has 
become so common that the medical profession now has 
a separate journal to deal with it. 

There is some connection, not yet entirely under- 
stood, between certain cancers and hormones. Pasteur- 
ized milk is apparently adding to the problem as there is 
a relationship between certain types of cancer and the 
consumption of pasteurized milk. * 

The pituitary hormone, TSH, stimulates the thyroid 
gland. If minute amounts of this pituitary hormone were 
to be absorbed daily from unbalanced pasteurized milk. 



I have not been able to verify this. It's hard to pin down cancer. 



Udder Destruction 



35 



depression of the thyroid gland could eventually result. 
Low thyroid function has become extremely common in 
this country. Some experts estimate that fifty percent of 
the people over fifty years of age have some degree of 
low functioning thyroid. Could milk from pituitary-giant 
cows be contributing to the problem? 

Another hormone, from the pituitary, ADH, causes 
water retention. Two other hormones work directly on 
the ovaries and the testicles and may also contribute to 
several dysfunctions. ACTH, a powerful adrenal 
stimulator, can cause everything from diabetes and hy- 
pertension to Addison's Disease (adrenal exhaustion), 
and acne. 

Through the process of chromotography, we now 
know that synthetic vitamins are not the same as natural 
ones. The pasteurizers love to point out the vitamin con- 
tent of their heat-treated milk, using this as an argument 
for equivalent nutrient value between natural, raw, certi- 
fied milk and heated, pasteurized milk. But Vitamin C, 
for instance, is higher in concentration in fresh raw milk 
than in heat-treated, pasteurized milk -- 33% more. The 
pasteurization fanatics quickly point out that "both are 
inadequate in Vitamin C, and neither raw or pasteurized 
milk should be depended upon as a Vitamin C source." If 
this is true, why do babies fed pasteurized milk develop 
a scurvy-like syndrome and raw milk-fed babies do not? 

Pottenger proved there is a yet undiscovered defi- 
ciency disease, similar to Vitamin C deficiency (scurvy), 
that can be cured by giving an endocrine product that 
contains no Vitamin C. 2 Raw milk has this unknown 
nutrient and pasteurized milk does not. Stefansson, a 
famous arctic explorer, demonstrated that a supposedly 
adequate intake of Vitamin C in the form of tomato juice 
did not prevent scurvy in an arctic sea captain (3) whereas 
just a few days on raw meat cured him completely. As 
shown by Pottenger, raw milk, if it had been available, 
would have accomplished the same thing. 




Pituitary Giant Freaks Produce More Milk. But What About the Quality ? 



Udder Destruction 



37 



It was pointed out in 1942 that "...the cows of the 
country produce as much Vitamin C as does the entire citrus 
crop, but most of it is lost as the result of pasteurization." 4 

Today the losses in commercial pasteurized milk are 
even greater. Jack Jansen, Ph.D., Clemson University De- 
partment of Dairy Science, studied the vitamin losses in 
milk stored in translucent plastic jugs and exposed to 
continuous fluorescent lighting . 5 This merchandising 
practice is standard today in most supermarkets. Jansen 
found that at least half of the Vitamin C content of the 
milk was destroyed after twenty-four hours of the light 
exposure. An interesting additional finding of the Jansen 
study was that the fluorescent lighting caused a "light- 
induced oxidized flavor."* Taste tests of Clemson 
students revealed that they preferred the oxidized taste 
and accepted it as the real taste of milk! 

The work of Friedberger is intensely interesting in 
this regard. 6 Friedberger found that heat treatment actu- 
ally caused deficiencies not caused by vitamin destruc- 
tion. The vitamins were certainly destroyed, but animals 
on the heat-processed product with vitamins added still re- 
acted adversely just like those not receiving any addi- 
tional vitamins at all. 

What Pasteurized, Homogenized Milk 
Can Do To You 

In Chapter XI we report on how raw milk and immu- 
nized raw milk often can give great benefit to the sufferer of 
rheumatoid arthritis and other diseases. You also need to 
know what the wrong kind of milk can do to you. 

It's chilling to read the findings from the Korean 
War 7 which vividly illustrate the degeneration of Ameri- 
can youth. Of the young men killed there, autopsy ex- 
amination revealed that 12% had a 50% blockage of the 



* Although the practice of glass packaging is no longer common, 
now you know the whole story. Plastic jugs also destroy vitamin C. 



38 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



arteries of the heart. Five percent of them had blockage of 
90%. Remember, these were young men in their teens and 
twenties. Do you think we have a problem? We're in the 
third generation of degeneration, like Doctor Pottenger's 
experimental cats. (See Chapter XI). 

Skim or low-fat milk may cause degenerative arthri- 
tis, also called hypertrophic or calcific arthritis. Calcifica- 
tion of other tissues such as the pineal gland, arteries, 
and kidneys may also be caused by drinking fractionated 
(skim, non-fat) milk. 

There is a little gland right dead center in the skull 
called the pineal gland. We were taught in medical school 
that the pineal gland was unimportant as it had no func- 
tion; one of those little mistakes of evolution. Ancient 
philosophers thought the pineal was the site of the soul.* 

This little gland is often calcified, even in young 
people but, as it had no function, nobody cared whether 
it was calcified or not. We now know that the pineal 
gland is extremely important in light physiology and 
hormonal regulation, especially in women. 

Calcification of the arteries (arteriosclerosis), the 
joints (degenerative arthritis), and this important gland 
may be due to the excessive intake of fractionated milk, 
i.e., skim or low-fat milk. On the advice of physicians, 
millions of people have switched to low-fat milk under 
the mistaken belief that avoiding the milk fat will enable 
them to avoid hardening of the arteries. Drinking 
fractionated milk may cause exactly the opposite effect! 

Many other millions are drinking low-fat milk to 
avoid weight gain. This practice, combining a low carbo- 
hydrate diet and skim milk, is used by most of the popu- 
lar weight reduction clinics around the country.** 



* Organized religion has taken a stand against this theory, and 
recent scientific investigation has revealed some other uses for 
the pineal gland. 

** Do you know how a farmer fattens his hogs? He feeds them skim 
milk. 



Udder Destruction 



39 



The Wulzen Calcium Dystrophy Syndrome may 

sound a long way away from your local fat farm, but it is 
closer than you think. Wulzen did her classic experi- 
ments in the 30's. Her results have tremendous clinical 
significance in human nutrition, but, like Crewe's work 
with milk therapy, they have been largely ignored. 8 

Wulzen reported that guinea pigs fed fresh raw milk 
thrived and at autopsy showed no abnormalities of any 
kind. The test animals fed pasteurized milk did not grow 
well and consistently developed a highly characteristic 
syndrome, the first sign of which was wrist stiffness, a 
form of arthritis. But far worse was the effects from pas- 
teurized, skim milk. These animals not only did not do 
well — they became weak and emaciated and then died. 
First they developed the characteristic wrist stiffness and 
then muscular dystrophy. Autopsy revealed severe hard- 
ening of the arteries and calcification of other soft tissues. 
In humans this syndrome is probably manifested by cal- 
cification of the joints, which we know as degenerative 
arthritis, hardening of the arteries, cataract, and calcifica- 
tion of that important gland, the pineal. 

Wulzen postulated that there was an "anti-stiffness fac- 
tor" in the cream portion of the milk. She later proved that 
this factor is a steroid, a cortisone-like chemical. If the ani- 
mals were fed raw cream or a carbohydrate, the wrist stiff- 
ness would be reversed. Lack of carbohydrate will increase 
the symptoms. This may be highly significant in our diet- 
conscious and forever-reducing population. 

The "anti-stiffness factor" is probably not the only 
substance in the cream that remains undiscovered. When 
animals are placed on skim milk with the vitamins lost 
from the cream replaced, the animals develop very 
poorly. But when four percent butter fat is fed to similar 
animals, they develop normally. The vegetable oils now 
being pushed on the American people by organized 
medicine and self-styled nutrition experts will not work 
as a substitute for cream. 



40 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



Skim milk-fed animals develop testicular atrophy 
with complete sterility. Male sterility is a major concern 
in our country today, and the skim milk fad may be a ma- 
jor contributing factor. 

The test animals also developed severe calcification 
of most large blood vessels, anemia, and high blood pres- 
sure. Another characteristic of the syndrome that may be 
of significance in human medicine is the development of 
calcium deposits around the bone openings in the spine 
that provide for the exit of nerves. Sciatica and other 
nerve compression syndromes may be caused by this nu- 
tritional deficiency. Also, a decrease in hearing, leading 
to complete deafness was consistently found. 

How much of Wulzen's findings in guinea pigs 
apply to man is not known. But the implications are too 
ominous to ignore. People who drink skim or low-fat 
milk, and millions have switched, are usually calorie and 
weight-conscious. So the skim milk they drink plus a 
low-carbohydrate diet may be contributing to the extensive 
calcific degeneration we now see in so many patients. 

Critics say that just because we see this calcification 
in guinea pigs doesn't mean it happens to people. But 
who has offered any well-documented, experimental 
proof of any other cause for the extensive calcific disease 
that we see today? Other dietary factors may contribute 
to this calcification, such as excess sugar consumption, 
heated protein foods such as meat, chlorinated and 
fluoridated water, magnesium deficiency, thyroid defi- 
ciency secondary to iodine deficiency, xanthine oxidase, 
smoking, cadmium poisoning, and so on. But the Wulzen 
experiments were conclusive and repeatable. 

A Dutch chemist, Willem J. VanWagtendork at Or- 
egon State College, confirmed the Wulzen findings. He 
found that guinea pigs with calcification of the tissues 
could be relieved with raw cream. The active factor is 
killed by pasteurization . Professor Hugo Kruger of Or- 
egon State University again confirmed Wulzen's experi- 



Udder Destruction 



41 



merits. He proved that there is a definite connection be- 
tween pasteurized milk and stiff joints which eventually 
leads, in experimental animals, to muscular dystrophy. 

With all this evidence indicating that pasteurized 
milk, especially skim, will turn you into stone, wouldn't 
you think that nutritional leaders would be promoting 
raw milk? 

Granted, most of the experiments have been done 
with experimental animals, but as the great French physi- 
ologist, Rene Dubos said, "From the point of view of sci- 
entific philosophy, the largest achievement of modern 
biochemistry has been the demonstration of the fundamen- 
tal unity of the chemical processes associated with life." 
In other words, if it happens in guinea pigs, it probably 
will happen to you. 

R.D. Briggs of the Pathology Department of Wash- 
ington University School of Medicine, reading that the 
British had reported a higher incidence of heart attacks 
among persons with chronic peptic ulcers, (9) hypothesized 
that this increased incidence may be due to the treatment, 
specifically, the ingestion of large quantities of milk. 10 

Briggs and his associates undertook a statistical study 
of ten medical centers in the United States and five in 
Great Britain. They compared the incidence of heart at- 
tacks in ulcer patients taking a Sippy (pasteurized, ho- 
mogenized milk and cream) diet with those not using 
milk. Their results were startling and unequivocal. In the 
United States, patients taking the Sippy diet had a three- 
fold higher incidence of heart attacks. In England the 
heavy pasteurized, homogenized milk drinkers had a six- 
fold increase in heart attacks as compared to the non- 
milk users. 

In their discussion, Briggs, et al comment, "Even if 
the increased intake of milk is responsible for the higher 
incidence of myocardial infarction in ulcer patients, the 
identity of the specific constituent of milk that is impor- 
tant in this respect has not yet been established." 



42 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



That was 1960. We now know from the work of 
Pottenger, Wulzen, McCulley, Oster, and others what the 
"specific constituents" are: heated protein and xanthine 
oxidase. Natural milk, raw milk, contains no heated pro- 
tein and no biologically available xanthine oxidase. 

The Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SID), also 
called "crib death," has baffled scientists for years. An ap- 
parently healthy baby dies in its sleep, without crying, 
without struggling. These infants are six months of age 
or younger with the highest incidence at about three 
months. Almost every conceivable cause, from Vitamin C 
deficiency (probable), to suffocation from bedding (un- 
likely), has been hypothesized as the cause of this tragic 
form of death in apparently healthly infants. 

Barrett, in 1954, suggested that inhalation of food 
while sleeping may be the cause. This could never be 
demonstrated at autopsy. But Barrett and his co-workers 
at the University of Cambridge then went a little deeper 
into the inhaled food theory. 

It had already been proven that most infants fed on 
cow milk have evidence, in their blood, that they are po- 
tentially allergic to cow milk protein. Infants often regur- 
gitate various amounts of milk while asleep. If a child 
has built up a strong sensitivity to cow milk, they rea- 
soned, then why couldn't he experience a massive aller- 
gic reaction, anaphylactic shock, to a small amount of 
milk inhaled into the lungs? 

Using guinea pigs, they set out to test this theory. 
Guinea pigs were sensitized to milk. Then the animals 
were subjected to cow milk dripped into the throat and 
down the windpipe. The effect, although dramatic and 
devastating, was not like the quiet "slipping away" of the 
child who dies in the night from SID without a whimper. 
The animals convulsed violently and then died, hardly a 
"slipping away." 

Back to the drawing board. Why was the reaction 
different? The blood antibodies were present in the ani- 



Udder Destruction 



43 



mals. The reaction should have been the same as in hu- 
mans. Something was missing. 

"Wait!" a bright researcher said, "the babies die in 
their sleep. No one has ever seen a baby die of the Sudden 
Infant Death Syndrome. They don’t die in their mother's 
arms. They always die when no one is around, while 
sleeping." 

Okay, let's anesthetize the animals, they reasoned. 
This will simulate the sleep condition of infants who die 
of the "crib death." 

The results were startling and unequivocal, "Very 
soon after introducing the milk into the larynx of an 
anesthetized guinea pig, the animal stopped breathing with- 
out any sign of struggle. Death was preceded by a short 
period of more rapid breathing... until, with a final nose- 
twitching, the animal died." *Especially the ultra- 
pasteurized cream. 

Their conclusion, "It has thus been demonstrated 
that sensitized animals, when unconscious, can be killed 
quickly, silently, and without trace of struggle by the inhala- 
tion of whole milk..." (Emphasis added.)* 

In classic British understatement they added, "...the 
fact that babies do become sensitized to cow milk pro- 
tein, and that inhalation of this material could conceiv- 
ably be the cause of crib death in a young infant, should 
be another inducement to breast-feed young babies 
where practicable." 

As breast-fed babies rarely die of Sudden Infant 
Death Syndrome, we would suggest that babies should 
be breast-fed whether "practicable" or not. Suggestions: 

1) Insist that your baby be put immediately to 
breast, the mother's breast, after birth. 

2) Get the advice of an experienced midwife or mother 
concerning breast feeding or contact La Leche 



* On vitamin C deficiency as a cause of SID, see "Every Second 
Child," Kalokerinos, Keats Publishing, New Canaan, Conn. 



44 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



League. The average doctor knows little or 
nothing about breast feeding and may give you 
bad advice (if he gives you any at all). 

3) Beware of baby formula propaganda. Don't be fooled 
by the numbers game they play in comparing the 
constituents in mother's milk and formula. 

4) Gain adequate weight for breast feeding during 
pregnancy. A breast-feeding mother can lose sig- 
nificant amounts of calcium and other nutrients if 
she doesn't lay up plenty of fat prior to delivery. 

We'll tell you more about breast milk in Chapter IX. 

Although pasteurized milk is promoted by its manu- 
facturers as being essential for good teeth, a number of 
investigations would indicate otherwise. The studies of 
Steinman in California are particularly relevant." 

Steinman studied rats. The decay process in rats' 
teeth is biologically identical to that in human teeth. He 
divided his rats into several groups. The control group 
received a standard nutritious rat chow made by the Purina 
Company. These rats, Steinman discovered, would average 
less than one cavity for their entire lifetime. The second 
group received a very heavy refined sugar diet. Although 
they grew faster than the Purina rats, they averaged 5.6 
cavities per rat. 

Now the shocker. The third group was fed "homog- 
enized grade A pasteurized milk" and they had almost 
twice as many cavities as the sugar-fed group — 9.4 cavities 
per animal.* 

If processed milk does this to your teeth, what does 
it do to your other high-calcium organ-your bones? How 
does it affect calcium metabolism in the soft tissues of the 
body such as the blood vessels? 



You think that's bad? Add chocolate to Junior's pasteurized 
homogenized Grade A milk and the cavity rate quadruples over 
that of the sugar diet. 



Udder Destruction 



45 



Remember that your teeth are the window to your 
body's physical condition. They reflect your general state 
of health. If your teeth are deteriorating, you are deterio- 
rating. Hardening of the arteries and decaying teeth are 
part of the same degenerative process. The one you can 
see, cavities, comes early in life. The other, atherosclero- 
sis- heart attack is not seen and comes later. They are a 
continuum — part of the same degenerative process lead- 
ing to disease and death. 

Dr. Weston Price in his masterpiece. Nutrition and 
Human Degeneration proved fifty years ago what 
Steinman showed in 1963: Processed food leads to dis- 
ease and premature death. 12 

Milk contains a lot of sugar. But milk sugar, called 
lactose, doesn't have the same poisonous side effects as 
regular sugar, sucrose. It is more slowly absorbed into 
the blood stream, and so it doesn't jolt the pancreas into 
over secretion of insulin which leads to hypoglycemia 
and, eventually, diabetes. 

But, after pasteurization, you have a different 
story. Heating the milk turns the lactose into beta- 
lactose which is far more soluble and therefore more 
rapidly absorbed into the blood stream. The sudden 
rise in blood sugar is followed by a fall leading to low 
blood sugar, hypoglycemia, which induces hunger. If 
more milk is drunk to satisfy the hunger, then the cycle 
is repeated: hyperglycemia -hypoglycemia-hunger-more 
milk, etc. The end result is obesity. Obesity has become 
one of the most common diseases of childhood. 
Pasteurized milk makes you fat; raw milk does not.* 

The switch to pasteurized, heat-treated milk gave a 
great impetus to the milk industry at the turn of the cen- 
tury. People were confident that milk was nutritious and 



And remember, I wrote this 20 years ago. Obesity in childhood is 
nothing new. 



46 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



safe. But with the increase in consumption of pasteurized 
milk came a dramatic and steady increase in arthritis, 
heart disease, crib death, and stroke. Now people again 
have become suspicious of processed pasteurized milk. 

The milk industry is indeed committing suicide. The 
use of fluid milk is on the decline both in total quantity 
and per capita usage. 13 The abandonment of raw milk is a 
national tragedy. Fresh, unadulterated milk is largely 
unavailable except in four states. The producers, having 
ruined milk through processing, leave the people with 
two choices: (1) Drink milk that many experts say will 
ruin their health; (2) Abstain from drinking milk. 

The end result is clear: The eventual disappearance 
of nutritious food resource-natural milk. A great physi- 
cian predicted twenty years ago: 

"Unless the dairy industry is to awaken ...it will give 
sway to the chemist and engineer and forget that, so 
far, only God has made life. Like dogs and horses, the 
dairy cow will become the pet of the curious, to be 
preserved in zoos like the Texas Longhorn." 



Udder Destruction 



47 



REFERENCES 

1. Darlington, pp. 21, 19. 

2. AAMMC Annual Conf Kansas City, Missouri, May 1976. 

3. Harper's Magazine, November/December, 1925 & 
January 1936. 

4. Proc. Nat. Nut Conf. for Defence, May 14, Federal Sea 
Agency, pp. 176; U.S. Government Pat. Off., 1942. 

5. Family Practice News, September 1, 1981. 

6. Certified Milk Magazine, October 1927 as reported by 
Victor E. Levine, Prof, of Biological Chemistry Nutrition, 
Creighton University School of Medicine. 

7. Enos, et al, JAMA, 158;912, 1955. 

8. Amer. J. Physical, 133-500, 1941; Physiol. Zool., 8:457, 
1935. 

9. Morris, Brit. M.J., 2:1485, 1958. 

10. Circulation, Vol. XXI, pp. 438, April 1960. 

11. So. Cal. State Dent. Assoc. J., Vol. XXXI, Nr. 9, September 
1963. 

12. Price-Pottenger Foundation, La Mesa, California. 

13. Pottenger, Clinical Physiology, Volume III, Nr. 3, 1961. 



Chapter IV 

UDDER PROPAGANDA 



Picture a milk bottle with a skull and crossbones on 
it and the title, "Raw Milk Can Kill You." That's pretty 
heavy stuff for Coronet Magazine. But that's what they 
hit the American people with in May, 1945. 

"Crossroads, U.S.A., is in one of those states in the 
Midwest area called the breadbasket and milk bowl of 
America. Crossroads lies about twenty-five miles from 
the big city on a good paved highway... What happened 
to Crossroads might happen to your town ... might hap- 
pen almost anywhere in America." Coronet's expert. Dr. 
Harold Harris, then went on to describe in livid detail 
the epidemic of undulant fever in Crossroads that 
infected twenty-five percent of the population and killed 
one in four. Case histories were then given to show how 
subtle and debilitating the disease could be. 

Investigation revealed that twenty-five percent of 
the population of Crossroads did not get undulant fever, 
and one out of four infected did not die because the town of 
"Crossroads "does not even exist! The entire article, because 
of the harm it did to the raw milk industry, and indirectly 
to the health of the American people, was more irrespon- 
sible than yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. 

"A curious incident in New York City," Harris tells 
his wide-eyed readers, "concerned a physician who fell ill 
of brucellosis.', Wham-within a few days he was dead. 
The source of his lethal infection of undulant fever, or 
brucellosis, was cheese "dripping with germs," Harris 
reported. 



50 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



The incident was indeed "curious" in that: 1) Undu- 
lant fever doesn't cause death in a few days, 2) Cheese 
does not transmit undulant fever, and 3) Investigation 
through the New York City Health Department revealed 
that there was no such case ever reported! Harris puts 
forth so many outlandish claims and preposterous mis- 
statements that one wonders if he bothered to do any re- 
search at all and, if he did, if he didn't just decide to 
ignore the facts and write a sensational article that would 
sell to a major magazine, and scare the pants off people 
drinking raw milk. Harris either made up this article out 
of his head, was incompetent in researching the litera- 
ture, or had a sincere desire to protect the American peo- 
ple from a disease about which he was totally ignorant. 

Irresponsible, incompetent, malicious-too strong? 
Harris admits to J. Howard Brown of Johns Hopkins Uni- 
versity that he made the whole thing up and from his 
own writings reveals that he knew it couldn't have possi- 
bly happened. 

A Summary of Harris' "Facts" 

1) Undulant fever is a common disease in the United 
States. Untrue 

2) Raw milk transmits undulant fever. Untrue 

3) Cows that have passed tests for undulant fever can 
pass the germ in their milk. Untrue 

4) Cows can transmit the pig strain of undulant fever in 
their milk. Untrue 

5) Undulant fever can be transmitted from cheese. 
Untrue 

6) Four thousand cases of typhoid fever in Montreal 
were caused by drinking raw milk. Untrue (It was 
Pasteurized milk. 



Udder Propaganda 



51 



7) Drinking unpasteurized milk unnecessarily exposes 
one to illness. Untrue 

8) Ten percent of Americans are infected with undulant 
fever. Untrue (And preposterous!) 

9) Raw milk can be "as lethal as strychnine." Untrue 
(And asinine.) 

Americans believe in the Reader's Digest and Ladies 
Home Journal and, for the most part, in my opinion, this 
trust is justified. J.B. Darlington, in her brilliant series of 
articles in the Rural New Yorker, remarks that a free press, 
such as we have, would appear to guarantee that both 
sides will be heard on an issue. If, such as in the case of 
raw milk, articles appear in prestigious journals like the 
Reader's Digest and Ladies Home Journal attacking raw 
milk as unsafe and no reply is heard in future issues, 
then unpasteurized milk stands convicted. After all, we 
have a free press. 

But a "free press" is free to print or not print, so it 
will print what is in the best interest of the press. The 
best interest of the press coincides with the interest of its 
advertisers. In the dairy industry, close to one hundred 
percent of the advertising is done by the National Dairy 
Council and those closely affiliated with it. They do not 
consider raw milk to be in their best financial interest 
and, hence, the American people have been subjected to a 
one-sided propaganda blast that depicts fresh, unpas- 
teurized milk as a veritable bacterial soup and a sure 
path to an early grave. Pasteurization has been sold as a 
cure-all, and the people, after years of propaganda, have 
accepted it as being as true as the law of gravity. The 
press is not free for everyone, and Coronet refused to al- 
low the other side of the milk controversy to be heard. 

The Ladies Home Journal, December, 1944, reported, 
"A Kansas City survey proved that nine percent of 7,122 
school children entertained (undulant fever) infection." 



52 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



"Entertained," a peculiar word in this context, could 
be interpreted by most people as meaning that almost 
seven hundred children of those surveyed were running 
around with undulant fever — an epidemic. 

Darlington (Rural New Yorker) investigated this 
claim. Both Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas City, Kan- 
sas health departments denied any knowledge of the sur- 
vey. After further research, Darlington finally found the 
report of which the Kansas Cities had no knowledge. 

The report did indeed reveal nine percent-but nine 
percent of what? The study merely showed that nine 
percent of the children had a positive skin test to brucel- 
losis, like a TB skin test, but not a single case of undulant 
fever was found. Not only were the children not "enter- 
taining the infection" as reported by Ladies Home Journal, 
but, because of their positive skin tests, which indicate 
immunity, it would be almost impossible for them to contract 
the disease. 

The pasteurization propagandists will use the flimsi- 
est statistics in their relentless drive to stamp out raw 
milk. The Progressive, on July 15, 1946 and repeated by 
the Reader's Digest the following month, reported: 
"Startling improvements in public health invariably 
ensue when a community moves from raw to 
pasteurized milk. The Province of Ontario, Canada 
had been overrun with undulant fever, typhoid, and 
other infectious diseases when, in 1938, the 
provincial legislature made pasteurization compul- 
sory in all communities ...deaths from typhoid were 
cut in half." 

As we pointed out in our analysis of the Coronet ar- 
ticle, whether milk is pasteurized or not has little to do 
with catching typhoid. But the most impressive thing 
about the author of this propaganda piece is not his igno- 
rance, but his audacity. The official records from the 
Canadian Public Health Journal and the Ontario 
Department of Health reveal that between 1912 and 1941 



Udder Propaganda 



53 



inclusive, a period of twenty-nine years, there was a 
grand total of two deaths from milk-borne typhoid. Cut 
in half? From two to one in twenty-nine years? Although 
the statistics don't tell us, there is a good possibility that 
the milk involved was pasteurized anyway. 

The other typhoid deaths during this period, two 
hundred forty-five of them, were caused by contami- 
nated foods other than milk and just plain water. From 
these statistics it becomes obvious that milk is one of the 
foods least likely to give you typhoid fever. 

The Reader's Digest, enlarging on the Progressive's 
hysterical and dishonest article, reported: 

"...an estimated 45,000 persons will be stricken this 
year with one or another of the lethal diseases carried 
by infected raw milk -- diseases such as diphtheria, 
streptococcus infections of the throat and tonsils, 
dysentery, scarlet, typhoid, paratyphoid, and undulant 
fever. Still more thousands will suffer debilitating 
gastric and intestinal disturbances which are likely to 
be put down to 'food poisoning'. Thousands of infants 
will contract diarrhea, more or less serious." 

Wow, our old friend the cow is nothing but a four- 
legged Typhoid Mary! 

But, knowing the old adage about statistics and stat- 
isticians, we looked at the records for the years 1944 and 
1945, which are the two years preceding the Progressive 
article and the Reader's Digest condensation. 



Official public health reports for those two years 
reveal: 


Diseases from raw milk and raw 
milk in ice cream 


904 cases 


Diseases from pasteurized milk 
and pasteurized milk in ice cream 


1,841 cases 



54 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



Darlington (The Rural New Yorker), to emphasize 
the relative unimportance of milk in transmitting disease, 
gives the following comparisons for the year 1944: 

Diseases from milk and milk products 1,499 cases 
Diseases from water 2,686 cases 

Diseases from foods other than milk 14,558 cases 

Raw milk accounted for a little over two percent of 
this total and Darlington comments wryly, "If evidence to 
support the promotion of pasteurization is so difficult to 
find that it must needs be distorted and in some cases 
even invented ... an honest mind cannot fail to grasp that 
the case for pasteurization is a very weak case indeed." 

The propaganda blitz in the lay press has, unfortu- 
nately, been supported by the majority of professional 
organizations. 

The opposition to unprocessed raw milk includes: 

American Veterinary Medical Association 

American Medical Association 

American Dental Association 

American Academy of Pediatrics 

Federal Food and Drug Administration 

Center for Disease Control 

National Dairy Council 

State and county health departments 

U.S. Animal Health Association 

National Association of State Public Health *** 

Veterinarians Conference of State and Territorial 

Epidemiologists 

With this kind of opposition, the tiny group of dairy- 
men producing top quality, untreated milk can survive 
only if the American consumer educates himself about 
milk and then, in turn, enlists the aid of his doctor and 



Udder Propaganda 



55 



his state legislators. As the people responsible for the na- 
tion's health are largely misinformed on the subject of 
milk, the impetus for the return to healthy milk must 
come from the consumer. 

This relentless propaganda has reduced the number 
of raw certified dairies to three: Two in California and 
one in Georgia. (In 2006, there are four.) Public health 
officials and misinformed professional groups across the 
country continue their vicious attacks against the four 
remaining raw certified milk producers. 

A recent anti-milk book , 10 Don't Drink Your Milk by 
Oski, brought up the old argument about other mammals 
not drinking milk after weaning. Man is the only mam- 
mal, the argument goes, who drinks milk after the wean- 
ing age. Therefore it is abnormal and against nature's 
intent. 

But man is one of the few mammals who eats snails, 
raw clams, and raw oysters. He is the only mammal who 
eats lobster. Most mammals are restricted in what they 
eat by their ecological circumstances. They can only eat 
what nature provides. Man, with his mobility and intelli- 
gence, has a wide variety of foods to choose from.* Most 
mammals, if offered fresh milk, will drink it and like it. 
Try it on your cat. 

Oski's anti-milk book implicates milk in a wide range 
of diseases including anemia, arthritis, "Lou Gehrig 
Disease," fatigue, allergy, and multiple sclerosis. But, 
tragically, the author didn't understand that man, not the 
cow, is the culprit and that pasteurization and homo- 
genization** cause most of the ills he blames on milk. 
Arthritis and multiple sclerosis, two of the diseases he 
blames on milk, can actually be treated with raw milk 
(See Chapter XI). 



* Granted, he doesn't always make a wise choice. 

** He doesn't even mention homogenization. 



56 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



Oski's book does contain an excellent chapter on the 
politics of milk. Since he wrote his book, the political 
situation has gotten much worse. President Reagan, who 
was supposed to be a conservative, signed into law a bill 
that pays dairy farmers not to produce milk. So the dairy 
farmer, like the potato farmer, joins a privileged class 
paid not to work. Udderly disgusting.* 

THE GREAT SALMONELLA 
FISH STORY 

Salmonella is not a fish but a form of bacteria. But 
public health officials and the scientists who should 
know better, act awfully fishy about salmonella. If you 
don't understand salmonella you won't understand the 
Alta-Dena conspiracy that follows. Once you understand 
the basic bacteriology of milk** you will see how incred- 
ible the conspiracy against Alta-Dena and Mathis Dairies 
really is. 

The organism was named after the American veteri- 
narian, D.E. Salmon, who isolated it in 1885. It is ubiqui- 
tous. Salmonella is in your nose; it is in the living room 
rug. There is salmonella in your gut and plenty in your 
hair. Your cat has it too.*** It is also in your food — all of 
your food that hasn't been sterilized and sealed in a container. 

A CDC report in 1978 revealed that meat was far and 
away the most common cause of salmonella food poison- 
ing. Other causes were mayonnaise, water, Mexican food, 
potato salad, hamburger casserole, and tacos. So what's 
all this stuff about milk? Even Peruvian fish meal and 
turtles have caused salmonella food poisoning but raw 
certified milk? — Never. 



* Where do I sign up for a double dip? I'll promise not to practice 
medicine or write books. 

** There will be no written examination. 

*** As high as 40% in some cat populations. 9 



Udder Propaganda 



57 



Another common source of salmonella poisoning is 
cheese from pasteurized milk. One epidemic in Colorado' 
put three hundred thirty-nine people in the outhouse. 
There were no fatalities, but everyone got their intestinal 
tract thoroughly scoured. The CDC reported 2 an outbreak 
of salmonella food poisoning in Arizona. Twenty-three 
people sick from pasteurized milk. An epidemic in Ohio 
was caused by marijuana. The smokers then transmitted 
it to their children and the children infected their 
grandmothers.* 

The CDC appears to be as eager as the California 
Health Department to stamp out raw certified milk. They 
supported the California Health Services vicious and un- 
warranted attacks against Alta-Dena. They editorialized, 
"... salmonella contamination of unpasteurized milk can 
be a persistent problem, even in dairies that follow the 
procedures recommended by the American Association of 
Medical Milk Commissions..."** (Emphasis added.) They 
concluded, "Present day technology cannot produce raw 
milk (including that listed as certified) that can be assured to 
be free of pathogens; only with pasteurization is there this 
assurance." You might expect that sort of statement from a 
high school biology report, but not from the Ph.D's, M.D.'s 
and vets at the Center for Disease Control. Actually, "present 
day technology" solved the problem years ago with the 
introduction of the automatic milk machine. 

Another illustration of the CDC's competence level 
was a July, 1977 report 3 in which they state that Q Fever 
can be caught from raw milk. Q Fever has never been 
contracted from drinking milk, raw or pasteurized. The 
disease comes only from inhaling the organisms.*** 

In October, 1978 there was an epidemic of salmo- 
nella food poisoning in Arizona 4 involving sixty-six peo- 



* Will the FDA require the pasteurization of marijuana? 

** How can I say this delicately? That's a plain damn lie. 

*** One research group claims to have proven that Q Fever can be 
transmitted through milk. Their work was not convincing. 



58 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



pie which was caused by pasteurized milk. The bacteria 
level was twenty-three times the legal limit and the CDC re- 
ported that the milk had been properly pasteurized. The pas- 
teurization had nothing to do with it. If that milk had not 
been pasteurized, raw milk that is, lack of pasteurization 
would have been blamed for the epidemic. Yet the Center 
for Disease Control continues to tell us that, "... only with 
pasteurization is there... assurance" against infection.* 

The CDC undertook to tell sanitarians "what they 
should know" about salmonella in 1967. An article ap- 
peared in a technical milk journal in December, and three 
months later, March, 1968, the same material reappeared 
in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The 
first article blamed salmonella contamination of pow- 
dered milk on raw milk from one cow out of eight hundred 
dairy farms. As this particular plant handles eleven mil- 
lion pounds of milk every year from tens of thousands of 
cows, it would be statistically impossible for one cow to 
be responsible. Even if one cow were heavily infected, 
the dilutive factor makes this supposition ridiculous. 

What was not mentioned in the first article was 
brought out in the second one. Two workers in the plant 
were found to be infected with salmonella. As usual, raw 
milk got the blame. They can heat the milk all day, and if 
there are dirty workers at the packaging end of the line, 
the salmonella will be in the packaged milk. 

The CDC, again backing up the hit men of the Cali- 
fornia Department of Health, reported 5 that Alta-Dena 
raw milk "has been implicated in outbreaks of salmonella 
in 1958, 1964, and 1971-1975." This was proven to be ab- 
solutely false.** The staff veterinarian of the Iowa 



* The CDC doesn't seem to understand. You can't pasteurize the 
people who handle our food. But if food handlers were checked 
more vigorously than the food, most epidemics could be 
eliminated. 

** !(&%(x!/o bureaucrats). 



Udder Propaganda 



59 



Department of Health repeated the California falsehoods 
to justify the compulsory pasteurization of milk in Iowa. 
They embellished on California's phony reports and 
struck fear into the raw milk drinkers by stating that raw 
certified milk cannot be guaranteed free from disease be- 
cause the salmonella germs are shed intermittently into 
the milk from the cow's blood . 6 -- not so. 

Iowa doesn't stop at just scaring the bejesus out of 
its citizens concerning raw milk. They don't fool around. 
The Iowa courts have ruled that "it is within the scope of 
the police power to require ... that all milk for human con- 
sumption must be pasteurized." Now that's dedication. 

The most recent attack against raw (and pasteur- 
ized) milk is the leukemia reports . 7 Some cows do indeed 
have a leukemia called Bovine Leukemia Virus (BLV). But 
human blood studies have never shown the presence of 
the virus. Millions of Americans have been raised on raw 
milk, yet leukemia is not a common disease. In India 
almost all of the milk is unpasteurized, but leukemia is 
not a common disease there either — another bum rap 
against milk. 

Not all state health departments are as ignorant as 
those in California, Nevada, and Iowa. A letter from the 
Pennsylvania Bureau of Foods and Chemistry left no 
doubt about their confidence in raw milk, "I can think of 
no incident in Pennsylvania in the past twenty years in 
which raw milk was determined to have been the cause 
of human illness." 

The California Health Department, apparently un- 
able to sell its shabby research in the United States, took 
its road show to England and got it published in the Brit- 
ish Medical Journal. They reported that "Dairy X" (Alta- 
Dena Dairy of California) was wiping out poor cancer 
patients with their infernal raw milk contaminated with 
salmonella. Two Scottish experts responded, in essence, 
that the California Health Department was blowing 
smoke, "...we found no evidence of.. .life-threatening po- 



60 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



tential on the part of salmonella..." They had examined 
seven hundred cases in England without finding a single 
really serious case. 

The courageous certified dairies producing raw 
certified milk are a highly select group of farmers with a 
desire to supply the people with clean, nutritious milk. 
Health departments are expending their time and 
taxpayers money pursuing a problem where none exists.* 
It is ironic that health bureaucrats over-inspect the milk 
producers who are least likely to have milk contaminated 
with salmonella or any other bacteria. I stated in testi- 
mony before the California Milk Commission, the group 
responsible for milk sanitation in California, that looking 
for salmonella at the Alta-Dena Certified Dairy or the 
Mathis Certified Dairy in Georgia is like looking for athe- 
ists in a Baptist church. You might find one occasionally, 
but your yield would be extremely low. 

If you want to find salmonella, go where the action 
is. Go to commercial food establishments, barbecues, 
church socials. Check the mayonnaise, roast beef, and the 
custard pie. Forget the raw certified milk. It's the one 
food that you know is okay. 

To bring you up to date. Vogue Magazine of July, 
1984, blasted raw milk. Their health section was head- 
lined: RAW-MILK WARNING. 

"A new and dangerous fad: drinking raw or certified 
raw milk, also known as unpasteurized milk. In a recent 
newsletter of the California Council Against Health 
Frauds, John Bolton, M.D., cautions that people drinking 
raw milk are at increased risk of salmonella infection, 
which can result in high fevers and bloody diarrhea. In 
1983, the risk of contracting salmonella was 118 times 
greater for those who drank raw milk than for those who 
did not." 



That's not unusual for bureaucrats. 



Udder Propaganda 



61 



That statement, as pointed out in the next chapter, is 
based on misusing statistics. The years reported for those 
statistics in Chapter IV were 1944 and 1945, but nothing 
has changed, and they are still lying about raw milk, us- 
ing invalid statistics compiled by medical bureaucrats. 

Why are the state health departments so fanatical 
and malicious toward the raw milk dealers? Part of the 
answer is undoubtedly ignorance of the scientific facts. 
Give the average health officer (or doctor) a quiz on the 
infectious aspects of raw versus pasteurized milk and the 
nutritional differences between them, and he will most 
likely flunk. 

But an equally important reason is the economic 
one. Professor Oscar Erf pointed this out over forty years 
ago. 9 "The Board of Health and cities, as a rule, are un- 
willing to spend money for this inspection (of raw milk) 
to secure a good nutritious milk supply to those who 
want it. This is where the difficulty usually lies.” 

State officials resorted to outright deception of the 
public to discredit raw milk in South Carolina. I testified 
before the South Carolina legislature on raw milk, and I 
was astounded at the sneaky methods used by the state 
and university officials in the attempt to discredit raw 
milk. 

State veterinarian, C.E. Boyd, told the horror story of 
a herd of 385 dairy cows that he had destroyed because 
half of them were "tuberculosis reactive". Boyd knew per- 
fectly well that a positive skin test for TB, a "tuberculosis 
reactor," did not mean the reactor had tuberculosis. 
Ninety-nine percent of the time it means that the animal 
(or person) is immune to tuberculosis. 

I testified that half of the hundred people in the 
hearing room undoubtedly had positive skin tests for 
tuberculosis, but that did not mean they had to be 
slaughtered or even treated. Even if the cows had TB, I 
said, the milk would still be okay to drink. I pointed out 
that tuberculous people, not cows or cow's milk, give 
tuberculosis to people. 



62 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



Intestinal TB used to be caused by tubercular milk. 
This was caused by a tubercular milker hacking into the 
milk pail, flies or other insects and contamination by ma- 
nure. All of this has been eliminated by closed system au- 
tomatic milking machines. And, as Dr. Boyd knows, it is 
extremely rare to find a cow today with active tuberculo- 
sis anyway. 

To illustrate how scientists can manipulate the people's 
representatives and how the press can manipulate the 
rest of us, we reproduce below an editorial that appeared 
in the Columbia, South Carolina Record following the 
Senate hearing.* 



The Columbia Record 

PUBLISHED BY COLUMBIA NEWSPAPERS, INC. 

Afternoon Newspaper Established in 1897 in Columbia, South Carolina 
8-A Tuesday, April 27, 1982 RECORD'S EDITORIALS 
Nay To Raw Milk 



While we'd hoped that a 
bill to allow commercial pro- 
duction of unpasteurized 
milk in South Carolina would 
languish away in the Senate's 
Medical Affairs Committee, 
such was not to be. Unfortu- 
nate. 

However, Sen. Hyman 
Rubin, who heads the commit- 
tee, said he was bringing the 
bill onto the calendar "out of 
fairness" to Sen. T. Ed Garrison 
of Anderson. A dairy farmer 
and chairman of the Agricul- 
ture Committee, Garrison is a 
chief advocate of the measure. 



Rubin is personally opposed. 
We're on Rubin's side- against. 

We trust that the bill will 
sour, spoil and be tossed away 
as it's stacked with other bills 
on the Senate calendar shelves. 
No cold storage. 

Should the bill go before 
the Senate, we trust that sena- 
tors will recall testimony of 
leading medical men and Dr. 
Robert L. Jackson, DHEC com- 
missioner. 

Jackson says, "It's not possi- 
ble for any inspection or regu- 
lation to ensure that raw milk 
is as safe as pasteurized milk. 



The other half of the story, my testimony and that of Mr. Jack 
Mathis of the Mathis Dairy, Atlanta, Georgia was ignored. 



Udder Propaganda 



63 



I'm opposed to the bill because 
continued pasteurization is the 
only way we can ensure a safe 
milk product." Right as rain. 

Jackson cited, and senators 
should always remember, 22 
cases and two deaths from sal- 
monella connected with raw 
milk consumption in the state 
of Washington last year. An- 
other item: 260 raw milk-re- 
lated products endangered 
citizens of Kansas last year. 

Chilling, indeed, is the 
testimony of C.E. Boyd, state 
veterinarian. Consider his cre- 
dentials: he's director of the 
Clemson University Live- 
stock-Poultry Health Depart- 



ment. He told the story of a 
herd of 385 dairy cows that 
had to be "depopulated" when 
more than half were found to 
be tuberculosis reactors. Milk 
from those sickly cows was 
pasteurized before being mar- 
keted. 

"I can't predict what would 
have happened if that milk had 
been sold raw. " 

Allow commercial produc- 
tion of unpasteurized milk in 
our state? Give us one vote 
and we'll shout "Nay!" Give us 
two votes and you have "Nay, 
Nay!" Give us three and hear: 
"Nay, Nay, Nay!" (Emphasis 
added.) 



THE TROJAN COW 

The Medical Milk Commission, responsible for certi- 
fying as to the purity of milk, had taken a strong stand 
against pasteurization since their inception at the turn of 
the 20th century. They defended clean unpasteurized 
milk, properly inspected, as the milk of choice because of 
its superior nutrition, better digestibility, and freedom 
from disease-causing properties suspected of being in 
lieated milk. 

But in 1929 the camel got his nose in the tent. In Sep- 
tember of that year, the first pasteurized certified milk 
was sold. There was vigorous objection to this from 
members of the milk commission and producers of raw 
certified milk. Certification, they said, was for the pur- 
pose of guaranteeing disease-free milk, making the de- 
structive process of pasteurization unnecessary. The issue 
would become blurred and confused. The consumer 
would come to think, erroneously, that pasteurization 
was an added benefit to certification of the raw product. 



64 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



But why have raw milk at all if the pasteurized milk 
is certified as to purity? The whole purpose of raw certi- 
fied milk, the avoidance of the destructive pasteurization 
process, while at the same time producing pure milk, was 
being subverted. A member of the milk commission said, 
"It is at times distressing to see forces at work trying to 
eliminate or destroy our cause. More effort is expended 
to accomplish this end than trying to do something about 
the sixty percent of milk that remains unprotected, even 
by pasteurization." 

A major factor in the demise of the raw certified 
milk industry was World War II. Milk could not be 
shipped halfway around the world in its natural state. 
This gave a great impetus to pasteurization and pow- 
dered pasteurized milk. 

A near fatal blow was dealt to the raw certified milk 
producers by the hiring of Mr. Charles Speakes as 
Secretary-Treasurer of the American Association of 
Medical Milk Commissions, the national organization 
responsible for maintaining the standards, educating the 
public, and encouraging milk producers to produce raw 
certified milk. Speakes was a double agent. Unbeknownst 
to the Milk Commission, he was also the Executive 
Secretary of the Milk Foundation which is dedicated to 
the eradication of raw milk, certified or otherwise! 

By the time the raw milk producers realized that 
they were being subverted from the inside, the battle was 
practically over. When Mr. Jack Mathis, President of 
Mathis Dairy in Atlanta, went to Washington to fire 
Speakes, he found two telephones on his desk, one for 
the Milk Commission and one for the Milk Foundation. 
"We never had a chance," Mathis remarked sadly. 

With the firing of Speakes, the official journal. Certi- 
fied Milk Magazine, ceased to exist. The magazine had 
served the raw certified milk industry for forty years, but 
it had become, under Speakes, an impotent publication 
no longer defending or even advocating raw certified 
milk. In the 30's raw certified milk was vigorously de- 



Udder Propaganda 



65 



fended in the pages of Certified Milk Magazine. After 
Speakes took over the editorship, the word "raw" was 
rarely mentioned. Fresh, unprocessed milk was a dead is- 
sue, defeated by a Trojan cow. 

REFERENCES 

1. American Journal of Epidemiology, Volume III, Nr.2, 
pp.247. 

2. MMWR, March 16, 1979. 

3. Ibid., July 22, 1977. 

4. Ibid., March 16, 1979. 

5. Ibid., March 1, 1981. 

6. Iowa Department of Health letter, February 20,1981. 

7. McClure, et al. Cancer Research, 34:2745-2757, 1974. 

8. Private communication, August 9, 1979. 

9. History of Randleigh Farms, pp.255. 

10. JAMA, February 12, 1982, pp. 816. 

11. Don't Drink Your Milk, Oski and Bell, Wyden Books, 
1977. 



Chapter V 

A COW IS NOT A CAT 

"CERTIFIED" MILK 

This chapter is "R" rated. If you don't like words like 
s— t, skip over to page 64. 

There's one thing you have got to understand. A cow 
is not a cat. A cat can't stand to be dirty. They don't even 
like to get their feet wet. But a cow just doesn't give a 
damn. They will defecate where they sleep. They will 
defecate where they eat. They stand in it and they will lie 
in it. Their legs, udders, and often even their necks are 
splattered with a combination of mud and cow shit.* 
Cows are not neat. Their personal hygiene would embar- 
rass a pig.** Cows are loveable at a distance-and down- 
wind. 

Cows produce a lot of two things. One of them is 
milk. But milk production is in second place to the main 
product of the cow which is cow manure. Unfortunately, 
many dairies bottle a product which is a combination of 
item one and item two. 

In the course of my research, I visited dozens of 
dairies, and I was appalled at the lack of hygiene in han- 
dling the cows. The uncertified dairies often milk cows 
with manure heavily coated on the hind legs. The milk 
suction tubes can easily rub against these filthy areas. 
The teats are supposed to be carefully wiped off before 
milking. In poorly supervised operations, the milker car- 
ries a paper towel in the back pocket of his jeans. Some- 



* Hold your nose and read it anyway. You really need to keep 
abreast of what's going on down on the farm. 

** A pig will not poop in his parlor. If he can't get out, he will at 
least go in the corner. 




Cows Are Not Neat. 



A Cow is not a Cat 



69 



times he wipes off the teats, and sometimes he doesn't. 
This procedure is extremely important because the hose- 
spraying of the teats, which is universally used, only re- 
moves the obvious debris. As you know from cleaning 
your car, spraying the surface with a hose is not effective. 
You must wipe away the surface dirt. The same is true of 
a cow teat. 

This was demonstrated to me quite dramatically at 
the Alta-Dena Dairy in Chino, California. Paul Virgin, my 
tour guide and good friend, took a hose and sprayed the 
teats of a cow in the usual manner. He then took a white 
towel from the stack and wiped one of the four teats — 
plenty of mud and manure on the towel. If those teats 
aren't cleaned properly, and they often are not, that stuff 
goes in your milk. Sure, they pasteurize it. But do you 
want pus, feces, mud, and urine from the neighboring 
goat in your milk even if it has been heated? 

After visiting these dairies and comparing them to 
Alta-Dena in California and Mathis in Georgia, I will 
never drink any milk but raw certified milk. To produce 
certified milk, the teats and udders must be properly 
cleaned. Alta-Dena uses twenty thousand white towels a 
day cleaning udders. The Brand X dairies use paper 
kitchen "towels" when they use anything at all. They may 
use one paper towel on as many as six cows.* Alta-Dena 
and Mathis use 1-1 / 2 towels per cow. 

Why does the dairy industry resist producing raw 
certified milk in the light of all the evidence proving that 
homogenized, pasteurized milk is an inferior, unhealthy 
food? Look at the following comparison between raw 
certified and pasteurized milk and you will see why. It 
takes dedication to cleanliness, time, and money to pro- 
duce good milk. 

Don't stop. This stuff is important. I know you're not 
a scientist, but your family's health is involved here — 



I counted. 



70 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



read on. If you just can't stand tables, at least read 1), 2), 
6), 7), 8), 11), 13), 17), 19), 20), 24), and 25). 

It would be embarrassing to the producers of junk 
milk ("Grade A Pasteurized, Vitamin D Milk") if the con- 
sumers found out about these differences. How could the 
junk milk producers live with these purists? What would 
it do to their profits? Wouldn't they look shoddy and irre- 
sponsible? 

So they went to their best defense, the Big Lie, "All 
raw milk is unsafe." This being true, we must pasteurize 
it for the safety of the consumer. What the consumer 
didn’t know was that milk so filthy that it has to be pas- 
teurized to make it safe to drink is certainly dangerous 
when raw and unhealthy when pasteurized. 

Patricia R. Meyer did an exhaustive study of the 
certified milk industry. She concluded: "Raw certified milk 
is unique in that it is the only significant source of a complete 
food in our diet that is not processed in some form before being 
eaten. 

"It is only appropriate that consumers have singled 
out this food as an issue involving their choice to buy 
food and weigh the risk/ benefit concept themselves. 
Some of the claims for raw certified milk may never be 
scientifically proven and some already have. Raw certi- 
fied milk, although a minor factor quantitatively in our 
food market, is an outstanding example of the epitome of 
the highest quality of food that man has available. In 
every sense it is a product that speaks for itself. From all 
indications, it is here to stay. The specific conclusions ar- 
rived at from this work include: 

1) When methods and standards for raw certified 
milk production are considered, risk of contract- 
ing disease from its consumption is highly un- 
likely. 

2) Raw certified milk is respected by certified milk 
customers because it is one of the few highly nutri- 
tious foods available that has not been processed. 



Category 

Compared Raw Certified Milk Pasteurized Milk 



bO 

.£ 

3 

£ 

CD 

O 

t-h 

c 

Pi 



a> 

hJ 



O 3 



QJ co 

£ 2 



x 

bj 

'Ph 

£ 

o 

u 



73 

c 

as 

0) -m 

.5 s 

"T >n 

.s ^ 

3 -o 
o £ 

n h bJ 



: -C a; 
i H o 

. & X. 

; :3 01 
: -g o 

ds js - 
'3 5 

<5 bj - 

u Td : 
O bp 

x> .3 
jjj v 
D as 

g g , 



as 

Ph 

OJ 

U 

OJ 

2 



P 

P> 

a; 



QJ 

o 

t-H 

a> 



as 



bC 

C 



. , c/s 

a! 3 

D CD 
_ ■+-* 
aS 

as 5 h 
0) p 
as 

T3 ^ 

g 

OJ '£3 
33 P 
^ D 

<s CO 



CO ^ 

c £ 
•Ih as 

£ a> 

5 3 

as 



g u 

o 



33 ^ 

P co 

o * 

CO ^ 
_i_l_i OJ 
aS co 

Mh CO 

as 

j= ^ 

a> 

bp S 

O bJ 
6 £ 



£ d 

S .ss g 

p= Pd 3 

^ aj > 

di 3 ^ 
® -g vO 

CJ ^ CO 
» & 1 rt 
• rt g Pd 
Eg jy bp 

.2 -c 

* § £ 

OJ Pi 

s ^ 

4H OJ 

£ > 

0) o c 
^-9 aS 
4^ as u 



C 

0 



u 

as 

O 

C ^ 

£ | 

as C 

. 

<N co 



^ IS 

p> Pi 





as ■*-* 


3 


Pi 00 


jb 


£ bo 


(b 


% .g 


> 


D "d 


as 


^ 3 




O Tl 


’~b 


o g 



Jx 73 

•£ S 

> as 
as £ 

I i 

O >-r4 

X £ 
as £ 

4-J Co 

a> ^ 

g | 
jo "S 

73 5h 

'3 5 

as n 3 
^ co 



>iS o 

00 -a 

n P 03 

< 3 



jS 

£ 

o 

o 



a> 

g 

N 

c 

W 



73 

£ 



CO CL{ 
(U cj 



^73 i 
£ •£ ^ 
(S D CO 

^ "£ 



co 



s s _ 

a p.g 

O aS 



°*3 

oj 2 
N C 



73 

o 



<c JS 7s ^ 

S i < o 

aS 



QJ as 



r? "S 
Ph U 



g WD 
3 .g 

T! 5 h 
r£ aS 
aS ^ 
u X 



> 



loss usually exceeds 50%. Losses 
on water-soluble vitamins are af- 
fected by heat and can run from 
38%7o to 80%. 



5) Carbohydrates: Easily utilized in metabolism. Still Tests indicate that heat has made 

associated naturally with elements. some changes making elements less 

available metabolically. 



03 



£ d 0 

o o d 

-H D ^ 

1 4_i <J) QJ 

—I &S. to fi 

"d o N <U -g 

e <u £ 

S to O o 
5h 03 ° 

Ph d 



CD 



03 

0) 



03 



d O 
o3 

C/3 

^ C/3 

£ O 



.a 



73 

QJ 

hH 



QJ 

C/3 

= CO d 
g O QJ ctf 



b*'. 

03 03 d 



r i 

.y (« oj 
•p 73 
.52 c/3 03 

b£'^ QJ 

Jrj QJ 



, _ 03 CJ 
bO c/3 - 



>V£= 



QJ 03 



QJ OJJ o: QJ 

S £.£0^ 

03 73 ^ 



QJ o3 



H 



03 



03 ^ 

u.S 



• C/3 

^ S 2 b 

<3 Pnd p 
7Z QJ -m QJ 

s-s 2 a 
Iig- E 
III 



OJ T_ 

o3 d 



QJ c/3 

H "g 

S 

.s 



03 QJ 
d O 



d 

o 



QJ d-H 

QJ QJ 

•y tri 



€b|'| 

d jg 



s.§ 

QJ c /3 



03 QJ 
^2 
QJ 



QJ 



d .0 
^OOx 

O '43 03 
^ O o3 £ 

O LO N 5-h 



I O t>N 

. o 



73 £ 

QJ 03 

-M Oh 

03 57 

QJ X 

D 

5h QJ 

> 

2 



QJ QJ 

^33 

^h 03 

a o 

\ o 

o o 

o o 

O CO 

ITS 

^ ns 

.2 c 

bo o 

}-i ‘43 
O o3 
QJ N 

o- § 

d QJ 



03 

O -p 

T5 O 

c 3 

H i— ' 



3 £ 



a u 



"o3 QJ lo 



<N 



QJ 5h 
qj " 30 QJ 

^ d g 

o o £ 

O +3 h-J O 



03 



a ° 

.5 o 

rrt lZ 

o3 



*5 to * 73 
O o5 73 53 
Z Oh 8 03 



QJ 

-t-> 

03 



ST 

03 



73 

2 

t 

QJ 

Jh 

QJ 

d 

o 



I I 73 
73 C/3 P O 

° j= §S| 
£.3 

a 73 



^ 03 



03 



03 

?3 d 

o 



03 



0 .HH _ 

QJ 03 O Jh 

' QJ 03 QJ 

« s= V .S 

*>£?£ £ ii 

.§ § £.3 8^ 

o u «a 

-rt £ S 5 3 > 
■£ S 'C O « * 
£ S o Cng ^ 

G *2 7 ^ O 

^ £ u * ^ o 

O ^ ? H s 

2 o c h -5 oi 

^ « o Cc Jh 

£ £ 



3 « gxifS 

<!2 U DntO 



0 

QJ 

73 

oJ ^ 

Ond! 

73 

C ^ 

.0 QJ 



’■d 



-m QJ 
03 [J 

>, QJ 
73 X 
o3 +J 



73 

QJ 



o 

o 



33 .QJ 

£ ■§ 

O 73 
O _QJ 
O ^ 



QJ 

s 

03 

"tb 

d 

£ 

£ 

£ 



O 

o 

o 



33 

03 



04 

QJ 

QJ 



QJ 

U 

(3 

o 



73 

d 

OJ 

Oh 

Oh 

< 

QJ 

QJ 

QO 

d 

a 

}h 

d 

o 



QJ 

.a 

o3 

QJ 

u 



d 

d 

o 

u 

QJ 



03 



d 
d , 

.2 "h 

5h 

QJ 73 

tj d 

03 jo 
CQ 03 



03 

QJ 

Jh 

u 



u 

o3 

30 

u 

2 

O 

jh 

QJ 

o3 

d 



03 

30 

QJ 

C/3 

QJ 

-d 



d 

cb 

u 

d 



Category 

Compared Raw Certified Milk Pasteurized Milk 





£ 


3 








o 


03 


co 






13 


S3 


QJ 






5h 


_o 


13 






QJ 

43 


’-4-* 

co 


to 




QJ 


03 


QJ 

£ 






13 

0-» 


£ 


cr 


_g 


13 

CO 


co 


O 


QJ 








QJ 


H 

03 


13 


CS 

.R 


S3 

03 


13 

o3 


44 


QJ 

> 


"co 

co 


.£ 


6 


£ 


O 

g 


<3 

a 


13 


QJ 

H 


S3 


QJ 

S-| 


CO 

V- 


<u 


03 


O 


QJ 


<3 




co 


CO 


Jh 


CO 


PS 

cr 

2 


co 

QJ 


co 

QJ 


03 

co 

?H 


3 

o 

co 


QJ 

S3 

o 


13 

O 

o 


t4D 

.£ 

*£ 


o 

u 

03 

QJ 


c 

o 


2 


s 


m-i 


P4 


2 



03 
o— > 
CO 




1 

( 

\ 

\ 

( 

\ 

I 

( 

< 

! 



< 

P 



43 

03 



£ 

O 



QJ 

U 

S3 

o 



^ 73 
qj j-i 
u QJ 

2 x 

-Q 

n ^3 
O g ^ 

T3 g « 

£ ■£ » 
c/3 QJ 
0) W) ^ 
■ 4 "* £ 73 
T3 ’C o 
O 01 o 

-2 c ^ 

rQ QJ 03 



O QJ 



o > 



o Oi 
u 43 

§ § 

w ,2 



03 

13 



13 
4 .QJ 
o3 

QJ • r3 

?H 

- Qj 

03 U 



QJ £ 

*3 QJ 
^ qj 
co > 

73 Z 

i* 

co 

QJ ’* 

55 a . 

tl 01 J2 

oi u orl 

° g g 
c s o 
.5 ^ g 

on" 
>0^0 
i> M-l , 

U 13 ^ 

►,2 'V. 
.h ^ 

03 S3 
13 'G 



d ^ ^ 

g .Si v 



QJ 

W) 



co 

o3 

43 



<3 

IS 

o 

CO 



£> 

Pq 



QJ QJ 

U U 

01 s 
X rt 

-M 

£ 03 

2 cj 

v *co 

43 .g 

£ g 

£ S 

c o 

03 (J 

QJ v/ 
U ^ 
£ 



os -a • 



o 

u 

o 

pL 

QJ 




i 



Employee Health All new employees have a complete routine examination requirea a 

Examinations: physical; plus monthly exams of time of employment in some states. 

each employee thereafter at all certi- 
fied dairies. 



15) Streptococcus throat culture: Monthly in all states for employees. Not required for employees. 

16) Chest X-ray: Yearly in all states for employees. Not required for employees. 



PH 



O 



£ 6 



73 

QJ 

N 



QJ 

D 

o 

'pH 

£ 

QJ 



73 

QJ 

t 

QJ 



p 
o 
0 TJ 
Si a 

c/D N 
cb 



qj i i 
_r\ N cb 

* r ^ 
a § m 
> <y PS 

^ CO 03 

<J Oh C 
QJ . . 

C/D 



Oh 

•5 . 

£ 

o 

Jh 

PJD 

cb 



-2 P 
00 Ph .P 
^ < .N 

P 

CD 
bO 

° 'Oh g 
VO 2 S 
o O 

CO U -P 



> 2 

CD 

p lb 

■M Ph 



-5 ^3 



u 

cb 

CQ 



-2" ^ 
2 £ 
P O 

CO CD 

P bD 



£ 'P 



P ^ 
cb :P 

* 6 

P 3 

P u 

2 p 

^ cb 

>,P4 

_J Vh 

2 p 

2 o 



73 


73 


73 


QJ 


QJ 


QJ 


_}H 


H 


H 


2 


2 


2 


cr 


cr 


cr 


CD 


CD 


CD 


5 h 


5 h 


5 h 


H_j i 


H_j i 


4 _i 


o 


o 


o 



CD 

QJ 

JD 

U 

g 

QJ 



73 bj .5 



QJ 

-M 

cb 

co 

cb 

,P 

Jh 

cb 

CD 

cb 

QJ 

U 

I 



QJ 
co 

p 

cb 

CJ -- 

cb 



P 2 
P ^ 
cb > 
co .P 
"QJ .. 



2 ° 
£ P 



£ s WD 

2 £ qj 

* -O _d 
bD ^ 

H r- (/) 

> E 1 



> T3 ® 

£ ai Cc 
™ ® <u 
P< O 0) 

_ &<ps • 

— ' x . V 

0) QJ 

fl ? 2 ■ 

QJ 2 2 ■ 

u-g * 

cb 



u 

cb 

CQ 



co 



cb 73 
<D -P 

P u 

u cb 



P 

s_i cb 
CD bJ 

b ~ 

5 "O 

-QJ QJ 

I u 

p 



p 
o 

p 

cb 

g 

. - s 

“ -d rd 

o ^ 



g 

.2 a° 

c „ 

ns ^ 
M>rd 
2 o 



QJ 
73 
P 
P 
co 
04 

CD __ 
^ cb 

O 1 



01 



ns 



(0 

c 

‘d 

OJ 

QJ 

> 

nS 

^ g 

dJ g 

X o 
t U 

o a; 

g£ 

ns 

u T3 

g S 

° cb 
73 P 
qj _bJD 
P ’co 
*P QJ 
£ 73 
cb -* 

x £ 

w .2 



p 

.2 

’co 

CO 

1 

£ 

O 

u 

04 



QJ 

-P 



bO 

P 



QJ 

-P 



cb 

QJ 

P 

2 I 

qj 04 

c y 

oj 

o -S 



co 

cb 

P 73 

tJ QJ 
cb -m 



O t3 

rP P 

u 

cb 73 
QJ QJ 

''P P 



QJ 

> 



u 73 

p % 
73 P 
o ^ 

$H 1-p 
Ph 1/3 
OJ OJ 

PS jp 



c 

QJ 

g 

u 

QJ 

Ph 



cb 

P 

a 

bJD 

P 

‘Ph 

QJ 

QJ 



O 

u 

QJ 

-P 



O 

^P 

QJ 

X 



necessary. Condition and treatments 
are recorded for future reference. 



Category 

Compared Raw Certified Milk Pasteurized Milk 



13 

0) 

‘3 

cr 

2 

p 

o 

'■P 

o3 

g 

'u 

cj 

03 

> 

0) 

>p 

0) 

X 

o 

z 



13 

OJ , 
OJ 44 

CJ Ph 
6 

1 ^ 

2 s 

c « 

^25 



co 

H 


-M 


M— 1 


03 


03 


p 


i— < 


CO 

QJ 


0) 


p 

o 


6 


kD 


cj 


Sh 

0) 


.5 




OJ 


Ph 


4-< 


u 






00 


QJ 




o 




CJ 


o 


13 


0) 

0) 


o 

u 


<3 

O 


QJ 

44 


cj 

p 

o 


p 

QJ 


o 

U3 

t-H 


CJ 

QJ 

43 

CJ 



33 13 
p qj 

u t 

03 Qj 
OJ >h 

^ O 
S3 



P 

13 



13 SG 
qj 43 

4-» -M 

s s 

c o 
'u g 
u “ 

> “? 
-q e 

j_i CD 
CO QJ 

11 

co 44 

£ - 
03 
U 

J— ( 

D 

>P 
0) 



=3 

< 



(Xi 



P 

U 

5-h 

CD 

X) 

3! 



13 

QJ 



QJ 

43 -y 



i £P 
Qj p 

*'■§ 
QJ -M 



03 

43 



O 

44 



03 £ 

wd- 2 
S3 u 

‘P 03 

> v 
o u 
co jfcj 
co bo 

^ 43 
O 

U S 



"oj 

u 


c3 

^P 


g 


,— — 1 HH 

s°s 


p 


CO 


43 


e ^3 


43 


QJ 4G 
bJD 13 




g 1 1 


5h 


<* 8 


QJ 


6 s g 


O 

M-H 


o I 


> 

OJ 


<3 £ 3 



5-h i +-* 
03 *3 ^ 

bC ° S 

03 U 

TJ g S 

O Sc M> 

o o 2 



qj 

43 



03 



s E i 

U 4 ^ 



3^ 

03 P 

Ph Ph 

P ^ QJ 
O O > 

D '43 
13 U -rH 

D 1 CO 

P QJ 2 

B Tl ft 
■g > < 

3 QJ ^ 

CJ 

?H CO 
D O C 
n ^ P 
^ qj .2 ^ 

r 3 g : 

£ Ph bJD 



O 

cj 

43 

u 

P 

(X) 



OJ CJ 

•3 V 

^ p 

bJD P 

.3 ^ 

qj 

33 44 
•p u 
53 QJ 
G 43 

QJ U 



0) 

43 



p qj 
.£ P 
P ^ 

03 bO 

bO £ 
5h -P 

° ^ 

•si 

QJ 0) 
bp 43 

43 O 

H-t 4-» 

03 
Ph 



bO 
P 

° 3 

qj P 
QJ -Jrt 



Bacterial check on all quarters (teats) Not required, 
following delivery of calf 



A blood agar plate culture of all quar- Not required, 
ters shall be made on each cow within 
10 days of being turned dry. Quarters 
harboring any pathogenic bacteria 



d 


0 


0 


K 


u 




H 

o3 


V. 

73 


-t-» 


73 


*2 


3 


03 

_co 




Jh 

QJ 


bo 


75 


S 


d 


N 


d 




75 

QJ 


S 


X 


3 


*2 


bn 


>H 

QJ 


co 


-d 


d 


-M 

CO 


_o 


d 


’ 4-1 


2 


'd 



75 

£ 

t 

<u 



75 

t 

QJ 



O 



d 

<3 



CD 

75 

d 

d 

75 

QJ 

u 

d 

75 

o 

5h _ 
Ph~ • 
CD § 

^ 2 

to 2 

3 75 

E § 



o .2 
, co S 

5 Oh Oh 

^ -5 

lu bo 

■a .s 

) (D ^ 
H d 
^ 75 

-d .2 

:d o 

§ 2 



75 " 

QJ a j 

X -+-• 

C /3 03 

03 *rH 

3= 'S 
.8 6 



03 

X T3 
“ « 



QJ 



75 

d 

03 



CD 75 £ 

r-< O ) *~ l 



75 

75 

d 

<D 



QJ 



03 

X 



bC 

.a 

2 



H co Ph 



O 

„ d 

bC'rt 

I'S 
1 § 
b u 

QJ 0) 

^ 2 

75 

*H O 
CD m-h 

1.1 

x £ 

2 03 

P X 

W CD 



d 
o 

-M 

03 

CD 

'""Ph 
Ph 
o3 

QJ 

-d a; 

^ d 

o 3 
-m TJ 

5h 2 
.2 6 
n bO 
^ C 



03 O 

bo <y 
.2 “ 
M 2 
g 6 
S | 

01 
43 



<u 

45 



0 tb 
■H 4= 

TO 

> ^ 
2 

g £ 

01 

^ 45 
60 O 

d ^ 
•d qj 

li 

O x 

Ph u 



.Ph 

75 

13 

<D 

75 

OJ 

> 

o 

$H 

Ph 

Ph 

03 

d 

03 



T3 o 

CD -d 

S3 

Co H_» 
5h U 
Ph 2 
CO ,-d 



c/3 y 
QJ 03 



1 CD 

: 75 



2 co 

03 QJ 

"bO fi 

-M O 

d u 
0) ^ 

£ 5 

.Ph-S 
3 ?H 

g>1* 



73 A 

QJ ^fj 

03 H d 
CD 

71 5 h 
d QJ 

QJ dn 
n 03 



03 



d 

g 



3 s g 

6 - 4 = 

^ <u 55 

5h QJ 



s -d g 
ns S3 .2 
4 = ns ■§ 
® <U J3 
^ O S 
"S a bo 

« 4 b C 
"C -d S5 

QJ QJ 03 

S N 5 
td '-d o 

c 2 

os X 
co H 

bb 



CO 



I £ c 



d 

75 

QJ 

U 

o 



bJD 

d 



d 

QJ 

£ 

Ph 

i 

w 

bJD 

d 



o 

(N 



least 140° F. and must be circulated for 
a minimum of 20 min. 



Category 

Compared Raw Certified Milk Pasteurized Milk 



13 


13 


13 


OJ 


0J 


QJ 


f-t 


u 


5-h 


'3 


‘3 


‘P 


cr 


cr 


cr 


QJ 


0) 


QJ 


5h 


in 


in 


4— < 


4_i 


4_i 


o 


o 


o 


Z 


Z 


2 



QJ „ 
T3 



T3 bO P 

g C .P 

Sb^ ?h 
O QJ 

o .> 

O) 
u 

CD <D <D 
,_Q N 5-1 

3'^ 

* :§ 3 

■S c ° 

QJ 

g 

+- 

^ qj o3 

Cl 33 2^ 

QJ 05 

4-» QJ 

.g I - 
3 13 6 

^1 p g 

^ 03 ^ 



C/3 

g 


in 

QJ 


4—* 

03 

| 




co 

03 


2 


13 

QJ 




CD 


P 




. V. 


r QJ 




QJ 








QJ 


CD 




LO 


U 


CO 


bJD 


,P 


bJD 

5-4 


_P 


05 


4J- 


X 

OJ 


P 

o 


P 




03 


1 1 


"4-4 


’g 


+J 


’■P 


£ 

O 


QJ 

£ 


CO 




o 


P 

5h 


o 

p 


o3 

Jh 

CD 


o 

MH 


03 

> 


CO 

p 


a 


‘u 

03 


CD 


2 

2 


Ph 

o 

bJD 


QJ 


Jh 


O 


gj 


Ph 


g 


o 


P 



DP OS -m 



O £ 

J “‘ s 



*5 ^ 

(D 



QJ CD 



03 <D 

WD 
^3 bO 
y P 



r° * 

E— 1 o3 



* s; 



8.1 

QJ ^-H 

I.' 

5 ^ 

■H -M 

03 

03 

N ii 



«S JH 

u s » 

Ph Ph CO 

£ -> "5 

3 N > 

* 2 .* 

i s g 

3 & a 

u w u 

03 O ^ 

> (N > 



g 

bO 

.P 

’P 

P 

13 

CO 

t“H 

CN 



P 

.2 

2 

cp 

p 



u 

2 



K*^ 

o3 

T3 



^ O 
P-I C/D 
P WD 

u .s ■ 

g 2 . 



-P O 
03 LO 
P CO 



O 

u 

J— I 

<D 

k* 

CD 



QJ 

i-P 



03 

P3 

W CO 

c/d bp 

a g 

.2 -2 

^ 1 
*8 
QJ Si 

Pb 

X) 

P 

?h 



03 
13 
QJ 

QJ U 

43 JS 

H Ph 



22) Milk Quality: Maximum allowable bacteria per Generally tested 4 times each 6 

milliliter of milk — 10,000. months by the health department. 



Bacteria — Maximum count 100,000 
per ml. before pasteurization; 20,000 
per ml. maximum after. Not exceed- 



13 

QJ 

U 

p 



p 

o 



S3 N 



6 I 



Jh 

QJ 

PH 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

CO 



bo: 

P 



13 

D 

u 

QJ 



<D 

Ph 



u o 

-M t-H 

O 

c ^ 

M QJ 

■y qj 
P u 
P x 
o o> 
u 

cd 



Ph 



& 

u O 

cd h_i 

P 

P ^ 



P 

o 

13 

(d N 



Ph 



^ «d 
> Ph 



O 

u 



13 

D 

qj 

u 

X 

QJ 

o 

p 

03 



O S 

0J ^ 

-M 

u S 
o R 

P o 

QJ LO 

t-J rn 



_P 

3 

_p 

3 

£ 

13 

P 

« 13 

C/3 ^ 

ffi S 
1/ 
u 

n P 

° Ph 

O I 

o tJ 
LP P 
O P 

H-J -M 

o3 

O *H 

O J 

u -5 



p 

o 



a 



u 

QJ 

Ph 

CO 

O 

2 



u 

03 

-P 



O vL. 

u 



rP 

03 



O 0) 



QJ 

Ph 



03 u 

-M O 

P T1 

QJ 



13 
QJ 
QJ V 
13 
’co 

P f- 

a a* 

•si 

P=i ^ 



o 

o 

o 

o' 

o 

LO 

13 

0) 

QJ 

u 

X 

QJ 

O 

P 

co 

0) 

O 

13 



u . 
O 
u 
p 

QJ 



.£ 

-p 



w> oj 

.£ 5 



tp 

o 

O 



03 

p, " 
g | 

qj rr 



13 

V 

O 

o 

u 

QJ 

P3 

co 

P 



U 2 

Ph ^ 

£ 13 



P 

O 

u 

QJ 

P3 



M 



U _, X 

u 13 +" 

5h ^ 13 

QJ H QJ 



03 



03 'qj 

g -v 



QJ 01 

^ 3 
5 0 

-P S-f 
co d, 
co n 

QJ 2 

5 'p 

•rH QJ 

y co 

<d ^ 

MH 

'P 'P 

2 *H 

P 0) 
CTP 3 
a; _ 

03 

5h 

O £ 



® "2 

CO 

QJ ‘p 
QJ CP 
' 1 QJ 






I* a" 

13 QJ 
QJ 3 
b£ 

to 2 
3 

C QJ 

H qj 

bO ^ 

■H 

2 ^ 
"d ns 

qj -d 

« -d 

£ .s 

g £ 
” ,S 
o g 

■-p £ 

’■6 ^ 
QJ P 
U 03 



bb 

C 


biD 

_P 


o 


co 

p 


o 


o 


U 


E 






CO 




<N 


(N 



loafing areas, etc., must be scraped, 
cleaned, and disinfected daily. 



Category 

Compared Raw Certified Milk Pasteurized Milk 



73 


73 


73 


73 


QJ 


QJ 


QJ 


QJ 


H 


.Jh 


.Jh 


. Jh 


’3 


'3 


'3 


"3 




cr 


C7 


cr 


GJ 


QJ 


QJ 


QJ 


Jh 


Jh 


Jh 


Jh 


•M 


-M 


-M 


-M 


o 


o 


o 


o 


Z 


Z 


Z 


2 



CD QJ Jh 
03 _p & 
QJ -M QJ 



p 

O 

-M 

p _< 

CU 73 

CD QJ 
<-» QJ Jh 
Jh 

s 

2 a a 

M-H QJ 

> QJ 

U) > 

a s 3 

° to 

U QJ 

> 1/3 
CD ^ QJ 



OJ 



QJ 

O 

X 

CD 

73 

QJ 

> 



Ph£ 

Ph 

03 



O QJ 
-M Jh 
— < QJ 

1 X 



> £ Ph 



QJ 



p 
o 

qj -p 
r- P 

QJ 

O CD 
. QJ 

Jh Jh 

o pL. 

CD QJ 

O 9 

U CD 

p 

Ph 8 



03 



03 



<U P 
QJ 

. . ^P 

P CD 
o Id 73 
QJ QJ QJ 
QJ ^ OP 

> 73 '-P 



P 

<u o ^ 
at 3 3 
>, 2 ° 
a -S ^ 
o^B o 

6 « 

QJ 



X 

QJ 



03 



73 

S 

t 

QJ 

Jh 

QJ 

> 

03 



> 03 6JD 

qj y p 

P *CD 
- — i r~ ! 03 

< Ph1£ 



r- CD 

Jh ^ 

U p 

03 £ 

QJ ^ 

CD 

££ 

•g S « 

O || 

oo 3 

^ '2 ^ 
>-, « .y 

Pi 

w 5 6 



QJ P 
QJ P3 

& 2 

u | 

s .§ 

QJ 

>s £ 

Jh O 

8 ^ 

P* QJ 

QJ P 

0 o 

CD 

| 5 

-d o 
<D 3 
rP CD 

01 ^ 

£ e 
V ° 

> -3 

a 5 



-3 

o 

-M 

QJ 

> 

03 

X 

K*'* 

03 



QJ 

CD 

CD 4-. 

£ £ 
P QJ 

P3 73 

,rH P 

%'S* 

§ .a 



QJ 

QJ S3 

03 CD 



> 



o3 • • 

QJ cd 

X § 

QJ Qp 
QJ o3 
>*» P 

ul 

P ^ 

P X 

w w 



LO 

<N 



(N 



NOTE: 

Bacteria growth in Certified Raw Milk increases Pasteurization refers to the process of heating every 

very slowly for the friendly acid-forming bacteria particle of milk to at least 145° F. and holding at such 



OJ £ s 

T3 5 u 
M O 

S -*-* Jh 

N T3 o> 

• H QJ C 

Jh U P 
P p O 
QJ Tj QJ 

■s o 

ftf hn n . 
Ch 

c/5 , — i 

73 ^ :p 

p .2 £ 

o P ^ 

u (U - 

oj -P 
LO S ^ 

H O 

^ txO 
cd cd 

(U (U nl 

^3 *p 

H U 

•£> -d eg 

a a ■ 

£ O :s 

£ £ £ 

Qj Qj 

Ph ^ 



44 P 
^ 0) 

2£ 

bb"5 

.5 § 

N 

C “ 

<u 

S > 

9 t 

43 mh 

73 & 

P <7 
cd p 

#3 

.2 s 

5h Cd 

£ » 

» C 
cd 

Oh P . 

, ■<-• CO 

5h QJ 

OJ 

±3 33 O 

cd cd Ph 



6 

h n o 



£ 



Ph P 
cd 



6JD73 



WD 

P 

-5 

cd 

P 



WD 

QJ 

,-P 

CO 

73 



u # P 

•43 ’p 

Pm 

qj tj 
S2 cd 

cd co 



QJ CO 
JH *p 

5 «s 

cd bJD 



QJ 

73 

P 

P 

P 

QJ 

43 



co P 
44 O 

QJ CO 

-7 



5 T3 



CO 



Cl, 

cu & 

44 2i 

^ P 
^ cd 
cd -+7 

P g 

cj 



cd 

O 

73 

qj 

co 

O 

Ph 

X 

QJ 

O 

P 

73 

P 

cd 

P 

cd 

OJ . 

^ 15 



^ § 

o» S 

P G 
43 cd 

° I 

£ J 







A Cow is not a Cat 



81 



3) Consumers of raw certified milk are very con- 
cerned about the premium price they must pay for 
this milk, but remain staunchly willing to do so. 

4) There may be an inherent factor in raw certified 
milk that permits people who are allergic to pas- 
teurized cow milk to drink raw certified milk 
without adverse effects. 

5) There is a statistically significant higher value of 
some of the water-soluble vitamins in raw certi- 
fied milk than in pasteurized milk. 

6) Sales of raw certified milk are restricted by le- 
galities in fourteen states and by the lack of certi- 
fied dairies in the United States. These factors 
would have to be changed before full-scale dis- 
tribution could be achieved. 

7) Further experimentation to prove or disprove 
some of the claims made for certified milk 
should be completed.* 



To give some idea of the stringency with which the 
Milk Commission controls the potential bacterial con- 
tamination in raw certified milk, let's look at one of the 
regulations of the Milk Commission. A potential danger 
from milk (as with many foods) is bacterial hemolytic 
streptococcus. The streptococcus can cause strep throat 
and scarlet fever. The regulations state, "If any cow 
should be found to harbor Group A, hemolytic strepto- 
cocci, she shall be immediately and permanently removed 
from the herd." 

A great deal has been made of the difference of the 
flavor of pasteurized homogenized milk as compared to 
raw milk. Some people simply do not like the taste of 
raw milk because it's not what they are accustomed to. 
The devotees of raw certified milk say that it is far more 



Now go back to page 66 and read the table. 



82 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



delicious; in fact, the children of these people will gener- 
ally prefer raw milk. It's interesting to note that the regu- 
lations concerning raw milk as put out by the Medical 
Milk Commission states, "The flavor of milk is closely as- 
sociated with its nutritional value. The methods outlined 
for producing milk of high nutritional value are also im- 
portant for producing the best milk flavor." 

In 1925 Dr. Paul B. Cassidy lamented publicly that 
the majority of doctors were abandoning raw milk for ba- 
bies in favor of evaporated, condensed, or powdered 
milk. He was a great supporter of raw certified milk and 
was at one time the secretary of the American Associa- 
tion of Medical Milk Commissions. The AAMMC is the 
group of doctors responsible for seeing that the dairies 
carrying the certification seal stay up to the standards of 
cleanliness required by the milk commission. 

Cassidy reported before a dairy convention 2 the phe- 
nomenal results he had had at St. Vincent's Hospital in 
Philadelphia by switching from pasteurized to raw certi- 
fied milk. The commercial pasteurized milk often had a 
bacteria count of 200,000.* The sister in charge of the hos- 
pital was very concerned about the high death among in- 
fants from gastroenteritis. She asked Dr. Cassidy for his 
advice, and he recommended a switch from pasteurized 
to raw certified milk. 

The pasteurization Chicken Littles predicted that there 
would be a catastrophic increase in infant deaths from using 
raw milk. The death rate from gastroenteritis quickly fell 
from a high of 89 in 1922 to less than five per year. 

Emily Bacon, a pioneer woman doctor, was enthusi- 
astic about raw certified milk and urged its use, espe- 
cially for babies and growing children, "It is the best milk 
for infants and growing children because it is clean, it is 
safe, it is raw, it is uniform in consistency, it is fresh. Its 
safety is assured because it is Certified Milk... there are 



And still does. 



A Cow is not a Cat 



83 



no harmful bacteria in it. Because it is safe , it does not need 
to be pasteurized. " 

A remarkable quality of milk that housewives of pio- 
neer days in the West took advantage of was its ability to 
preserve meat. The resourceful housewives would im- 
merse chops, steaks and roasts in large crocks of butter- 
milk, thus assuring fresh meat for the family year round. 

The Arabs have been preserving meat with camel 
milk for thousands of years. The Icelanders of 200 years 
ago preserved their sheep's heads in sour milk. 3 

In 1908, an American doctor decided to try it him- 
self. He immersed a beefsteak in buttermilk. Thirteen 
years later it was in a state of perfect preservation, "show- 
ing not the slightest taint or decay." 

The doctor emphasized that only raw milk could be 
used for this preservative effect, "It should be mentioned 
right here; however, that these remarks are true only of 
clean cow's milk as it flows from the original fount, and 
do not hold for milk which has been boiled or pasteur- 
ized... processes which... deprive the milk of one of its 
most unique and valuable properties." 4 

Raw certified milk was extremely popular among 
leaders in medicine before World War II. The prestigious 
Hartford Hospital used only certified milk, most of it 
raw, "in the artificial feeding of infants, for expectant and 
nursing mothers, and for all other cases." 

Harris Moak, M.D., a well-respected physician of the 
early 20th century, made statements that sound a little 
depressing as we near the end of that century. He asked 
rhetorically, "Does it seem at all likely that public health 
officials, the great majority of whom are Doctors of Medi- 
cine as well as Doctors of Public Health, will ever deny 
their brothers in the medical profession the right to have 
clean, pure, thoroughly trustworthy raw milk with which 
to meet the widely varying needs of their practice?" 

Such denial is very unlikely, he said. "(Nutritional) 
progress would be much retarded without the aid of Cer- 



84 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



tified milk... with thousands of physicians believing as 
they do, is it not certain that the profession will always 
insist that Certified milk be available when needed?" 

Raw certified milk was popular from Florida to Ha- 
waii.* There was no question among physicians, espe- 
cially pediatricians, that raw certified milk was 
nutritious, safe and therapeutic. Tragically, this knowl- 
edge has been forgotten to such an extent that most mod- 
ern doctors are antagonistic toward raw milk, and they 
don't even know what "certified" means. What hap- 
pened?** 

The term "raw" should be eliminated from milk 
grading. It has a connotation in the public mind of a 
primitive, evil or diseased state as in a raw throat, raw 
humor, raw sore, or raw meat. 

Pasteurized milk should be classified as "Grade B — 
processed," "Grade B-heated," or "Grade B — pasteurized." 
Under modern conditions of sanitation, any milk that 
must be pasteurized to make it safe is inferior milk and 
should be so labeled. Milk that is homogenized as well as 
pasteurized should be labeled "Grade C." Only raw certi- 
fied milk should be labeled "Grade A." 

From the American Journal of Public Health, Febru- 
ary 1930, "Is it not better public health practice to urge 
and teach the pasteurization of the lower grades of milk, 
than to spend time criticizing the non-pasteurization of 
the highest grade produced?" The American Journal of 
Public Health, although for pasteurization, clearly recog- 
nized that only inferior milk needed pasteurization. 



* Hawaii had the highest per capita consumption of raw certified 
milk in the country. Today you could go to jail for selling raw 
milk in Hawaii. For a state-by-state listing of the legal status of 
raw milk, see Appendix I. 

** The medical school professors, including the veterinary schools, 
fell for the pasteurization propaganda and dropped the ball. 
That's what happened. 



A Cow is not a Cat 



85 



It probably doesn't surprise you to find that the sci- 
entists at the Center for Disease Control (CDC), a federal 
agency, are just as ignorant as the veterinarians and MD's 
when it comes to infection and certified milk. From a 
CDC publication, "An analysis of salmonella cases in the 
United States in 1979 and 1980 from seventeen states ... 
showed that eleven of thirty-two patients had a history of 
raw milk ingestion.* Milk from many different dairies was 
involved. Unlike the tuberculosis and brucellosis, which can 
be eliminated from dairy herds with precautions, salmonella 
infections of milking herds continue to occur. Since up to ten 
percent of healthy cattle may carry salmonella dublin, 
salmonella contamination of unpasteurized milk can be a 
persistent problem, even in dairies that follow the procedures 
recommended by the American Association of Medical Milk 
Commissions, a private organization. 

"Present technology cannot produce raw milk (in- 
cluding that listed as certified) that can be assured of be- 
ing free of pathogens; only with pasteurization is there 
this assurance. The U.S. Animal Health Association, the 
National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians, 
the Conference of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, 
the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the House of 
Delegates of the American Veterinarian Association have 
adopted policy statements that milk for human consump- 
tion should be pasteurized." 

This same CDC report 5 stated that there have been 
two milk-borne outbreaks of gastrointestinal disease re- 
ported in the United States since 1955. Both were caused 
by pasteurized milk . Yet in 1981 they have the brass to 
tell us "only with pasteurization is there assurance" of 
not getting an intestinal infection from milk. 



* They undoubtedly also "had a history" of ingesting meat, 
margarine, eggs, water, and lettuce which are far more likely to cause 
salmonella food poisoning than raw milk. If only one-third (11 of 3 2) 
of the victims ingested raw milk, what did the other two thirds 
ingest? Why pick on raw milk? 



86 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



In 1976, a CDC report showed that the areas with the 
highest incidence of salmonella food poisoning were Ha- 
waii, New Mexico, District of Columbia, Louisiana, and 
Massachusetts. These are all states that do not have raw certi- 
fied milk. 

Drink raw certified milk for good health, and to hell 
with the government. 

REFERENCES 

1. The History & Analysis of Certified Milk, Master's, Thesis, 
P.R. Meyer, University of Georgia, 1979. 

2. Annual Convention, Certified Milk Producers Asso- 
ciation, Hotel Roosevelt, New York City, February 8, 
1938. 

3. American Association of Medical Milk Commissions, 
Proceedings 15th Annual Conference, 1921. 

4. Ibid. 

5. Family Practice News, September 1, 1981. 



Chapter VI 

MILKING THE GOOD GUYS 

ALTA-DENA 

"The Dairy That Cares About Your Health" 
(Alta-Dena Motto) 

A visit to the Alta-Dena Dairy is an unforgettable ex- 
perience. It is awesome in size (the largest producer- 
distributor in the United States). It is automated, 
computerized, and almost self-sufficient. They make 
their own plastic containers and grow their own green 
feed. But in spite of the ultramodern management and 
gleaming stainless steel computerized equipment in the 
plant, the offices are in the original buildings and are 
extremely modest. No thick carpets and expensive 
furniture. Harold Steuve, the president, shares a cramped 
office with Boyd Clarke, the assistant manager (his son- 
in-law). No ostentation here. The offices have that 
cluttered look of people with plenty to do. 

Alta-Dena is definitely a family affair. Not only does 
practically the whole Steuve clan work for the dairy, but 
other families have followed their example-two genera- 
tions of a family may work for the dairy at the same time 
including brothers, sisters, sons and daughters, aunts 
and uncles. These family ties have led to a stable and 
loyal work force. The eight hundred Alta-Dena employ- 
ees have no union and no need for one. The plant has the 
air of relaxed efficiency. 



88 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



There is a paradox at Alta-Dena. Although the plant 
is a model of American mass production technology, they 
produce milk just like grandfather used to make-clean, 
delicious raw milk. 

The Steuve brothers, Ed, Harold, and Elmer, set out 
from their family farm in Frohna, Missouri, to make their 
fortune in the late 1930's. They all went to work for a 
dairy in Azusa, California, and by 1945 they had learned 
enough to operate their own dairy. They purchased a 
small dairy farm in Monrovia, California and began busi- 
ness in June of 1945 with sixty-one milk cows and two 
bulls. One month later they started bottling milk and de- 
livering to California households. 

As the business grew, the large Steuve clan, consist- 
ing of twelve brothers and five sisters, joined the busi- 
ness in California, leaving one brother to manage the 
farm back in Missouri. Within five years the business had 
grown so much they needed a new farm. They purchased 
a much larger operation in Chino, California. 

The dairy became officially certified for raw milk in 
1953. They grew rapidly following certification. Today 
the Alta-Dena Dairy totally dominates the certified milk 
business in California, all of its competitors having given 
up production because of the cost and difficulty in pro- 
ducing raw certified milk. The dairy milks over eight 
thousand cows daily and owns eighteen thousand ani- 
mals. They are the largest producer-distributor in Califor- 
nia and the nation. They sell over 20,000 gallons of raw 
certified milk daily. The lack of disease from this milk is 
certainly as much proof as anyone could need that raw 
certified milk is the best and safest to drink. 

Alta-Dena has now spread its influence all over the 
United States, including Alaska and Hawaii. Their 
products appear in health food stores in practically every 
state. There are over seventy independent distributors that 
carry Alta-Dena products in over sixty wholesale routes 
across the nation. All of their products, which range from 



Milking the Good Guys 



89 



raw certified milk to buttermilk, ice cream, kefir, and yo- 
gurt, are entirely free of additives, sugars and dyes. 

But it has not been as easy as it may appear, the 
company having had relentless persecution from certain 
interests, including the health bureaucracy of the state of 
California. They have been constantly faced with seizure 
of their product, resembling the persecution citizens dis- 
tributing Laetrile, DMSO, and other non-government ap- 
proved substances have experienced. The attacks often 
resemble those conducted on drug pushers. The first as- 
sault was in 1965, when a San Diego County health of- 
ficer summarily banned all raw milk. He said that it 
harbored staphlococcus, a virulent organism, which 
causes everything from skin infections to penumonia, 
septicemia and death. The health officer stated publicly 
that he was going to do away with raw milk in the state 
of California, if it was the last thing he ever did. 

An independent laboratory checked pasteurized and 
raw milk samples and found staphlococcus in both milks. 
Staph is in everything, including all milk, raw or pasteur- 
ized. So what is the rationale behind banning one and not 
the other? If all foods containing staph germs were to be 
banned, there would be no fresh food to eat. 

At a hearing of the County Board of Supervisors, the 
health officer was asked, "Has anyone become sick from 
consuming raw certified milk in San Diego County?" An- 
swer, "No, but it could happen." Although he could not 
defend his position on scientific grounds, he refused to 
lift the ban, even at the urging of the County Supervisors. 

Alta-Dena then instituted a suit against the County 
of San Diego. After a three-year battle, the 4th District 
Court of Appeals ruled that the health officer had ex- 
ceeded his authority. Challenging a state health officer, 
and winning, was intolerable to the health bureaucrats in 
Sacramento. The word went out: Get Alta-Dena Dairy. 

In 1967 a resolution by the California Medical Soci- 
ety called for the pasteurization of all milk in California. 



90 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



Fortunately, the legislature was better informed than the 
doctors and ignored the resolution. Health Officer Askew 
of San Diego County contacted other counties to combine 
their forces in an attempt to destroy Alta-Dena's raw 
certified milk business. Three other counties joined San 
Diego in banning raw milk. After public opposition grew 
strong and research proved to them that prohibition was 
senseless, they rescinded their respective bans, except, of 
course, for Askew of San Diego County. 

Having been rebuffed by the courts. Askew tried a new 
tactic. He threatened to put up road blocks at the county 
border to stop the importation of "contraband milk"! The 
dairy continued to send raw certified milk into San Diego 
County and the road blocks never materialized. 

The Los Angeles County Health Department was 
next to attack Alta-Dena. This was the Q Fever* caper. In 
January, 1969, the Los Angeles Times reported, with large 
headlines, that twenty-nine dairies were selling milk con- 
taminated with Q Fever. The Los Angeles County Health 
Department had supplied this sensational intelligence to 
the Times. Alta-Dena raw milk was again banned with 
the presumption of Q Fever contamination. The dairy de- 
fied the order and was taken to court. It was in two 
courts at once, Los Angeles and San Diego. 

The dairy quickly had labels printed describing the 
raw milk as "pet food, not for human consumption". Mr. 
Harold Steuve, the president of the dairy and mayor of 
Monrovia, California, at the time, was arrested for con- 
tempt of court. The judge, Los Angeles County health bu- 
reaucrats, and the press came out with egg on their faces 
when it was pointed out by the dairy's experts that Q Fe- 
ver is caught through inhalation into the lungs and not 
by drinking milk! The case was dropped. 

A county health officer in Southern California, San 
Bernardino County, snuck a sentence into a bill unrelated 



* Q Fever is a minor viral disease of little consequence. 




They Vowed to Stop " Contraband Milk" from Entering San Diego. 




92 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



to raw milk that simply stated, "All milk sold in the 
county must be pasteurized." This was discovered by ac- 
cident,* and the enraged county board threw out the bill. 
When the health officer was interviewed later by Alta- 
Dena representatives and asked why he attempted such a 
scurvy trick, they were astounded when he said, "I'm 
about to retire, and I always wanted to travel around the 
world." 

To show how abysmally ignorant health officials can 
be, consider the October, 1966, Los Angeles Health De- 
partment report of seven Q Fever cases. Six of the seven 
lived "in or around dairies," they reported, but none of 
them drank raw milk. The mode of spread is airborne, they 
admitted, but "the most practical solution now available" 
is the universal pasteurization of all milk! 

The next attack in this continuing effort to destroy 
Alta-Dena and unprocessed milk was in 1974, when the 
Health Department of California, again without any sci- 
entific justification whatsoever, condemned the dairy's 
sale of raw milk because, they claimed, one could con- 
tract brucellosis from milk. This attack was absurd, as all 
Alta-Dena cows are vaccinated against brucellosis. Even 
though they are vaccinated against brucellosis, the dairy 
goes the last mile and tests the cows individually. 

Again to court. No brucellosis was found in their cows, 
and Alta-Dena resumed the sale of its unprocessed milk.** 

Alta-Dena was next attacked by overly zealous and 
ignorant health officials because of the possibility, they 
said, of the dairy's customers getting salmonella food 
poisoning from unpasteurized milk. The Alta-Dena Dairy 
and the Medical Milk Commission, which was responsi- 
ble for the safety of milk, stated that the salmonella would 
have to be present in the cows' blood to get in the milk, a 
highly unlikely situation. Not one case of salmonellosis 



** 



Somebody actually read the proposed bill. 

Brucellosis comes from close association with cows and pigs, 
rarely, if ever, from milk consumption. 



Milking the Good Guys 



93 



to has been proven to have come from any Alta-Dena 
milk. Milk samples are tested daily for salmonella. It is 
highly unlikely that there would be any contamination of 
milk because of stringent policies required for raw 
certified milk production.* It is far more likely that one 
would get salmonella food poisoning from unclean eggs 
than from raw certified milk. 

The attacks by California health officials have been 
vicious and unrelenting. In one case, a food store opera- 
tor was forced to pour ninety gallons of raw certified 
milk down his toilet while the health officer watched! 
Raw Alta-Dena cheese made in Wisconsin had holes 
punched in it, and Clorox was poured over the cheese. 
There was no evidence whatsoever that the milk or the 
cheese was contaminated. Taking the matter to court, the 
Alta-Dena Dairy succeeded in winning their case, and 
the pressure of zealous health officials, at least for the 
moment, ceased. 

A "staff report" from the California Department of 
Health stated in a widely read publication , 1 "...evidence 
points to a continuing health hazard to the public con- 
suming Alta-Dena's raw certified milk." 

Dr. Ben Werner, a medical epidemiologist with the 
California Department of Health, said that patients with 
cancer were being killed by drinking Alta-Dena raw 
milk . 2 This malicious and irresponsible statement was 
made in a public magazine read all over California, in 
spite of the fact that not one person has ever been proven 
to have even gotten sick from Alta-Dena raw certified 
milk. The magazine in which he was quoted. New West, 
is hardly a scientific publication. Using this platform to 
launch their attack made Werner and his colleague. Dr. C.L. 
Humphrey, look more like propagandists than scientists. 
But they found a way around that. Their highly misleading 
and inaccurate material was published in England, where 



* Finding salmonella in feces does not mean that it will be in the 
milk. 



94 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



checking of the facts would be more difficult, but where 
they could trade on their positions as officials of the Cali- 
fornia Department of Health. The British Medical Journal 
would have no reason to suspect that Werner and 
Humphrey were merely on a vendetta to destroy the Alta- 
Dena Dairy, using propaganda rather than scientific fact. 

The British article was a beaut, again claiming that 
Alta-Dena raw certified milk had killed helpless cancer 
patients due to salmonella.* 

After having slipped this article through a foreign 
publication that would be relatively immune from law- 
suits, American medical publications could then quote it 
as scientific fact. The Journal of Public Health Policy, a 
journal for medical bureaucrats, quoted the article exten- 
sively. Others have followed suit leaving Alta-Dena with 
an image of malfeasance. 

A young inspector for the California Department of 
Food and Agriculture told a lurid tale to the press of see- 
ing sores on animals, "so big I could put both feet in them 
and still have room to turn around." Although the state- 
ment is ridiculous on its face, no cow with a sore two feet 
in diameter could escape notice in even the worst dairy 
and certainly not in the dairy chosen by the United States 
Department of State as the official showcase dairy for foreign 
visitors.** 

These attacks caused an almost unbelievable reac- 
tion from the people of California. By August of 1978, the 
governor's office had received over seventeen thousand 
letters, telegrams, and phone calls in defense of Alta- 



* Most cancer patients die from some sort of terminal infection. It 
may be salmonella, stapMococcus, Torula Histolytica (a fungus) 
or any other of dozens of pathogens. This is often aided and abetted 
by cancer doctors giving powerful chemical compounds that destroy 
the patients'resistance. Some call this chemo-euthanasia. Even raw 
certified milk can’t protect the patient from that. 

** Everyone loves Alta-Dena but the California bureaucrats. 



Milking the Good Guys 



95 



Dena. No one knows how many letters have been 
received by now, but it is well over fifty thousand.* 

There was a furious legislative battle in 1978. The 
Steuve brothers were attempting to get legislation passed 
that would call off the bureaucratic dogs of war. It would 
appear from the record that state health officials went so 
far as to falsify bacterial reports in an attempt to discredit 
the dairy at the time this legislation was being consid- 
ered. 3 

When the state laboratory claimed the milk was 
positive (contaminated), a laboratory testing for the Los 
Angeles County Milk Commission and a laboratory 
which does considerable testing for the state retested 
their samples, and again the milk proved to be negative. 
There can only be two possible explanations for the dis- 
crepancy between the laboratories: the state deliberately 
falsified its testing results, or their methods are so sloppy 
that the milk samples were contaminated during the test- 
ing procedures. 

Inflammatory headlines: 

"Raw Milk Warning" -San Rafael Independent Jour- 
nal, June 10, 1978. 

"Some Raw Milk Found to be Contaminated" -Star 
Free Press, Ventura, California, June 11, 
1978. 

"New Warning on Alta-Dena Raw Milk Told" - Press 
Telegram, Long Beach, California, June 10, 
1980. 

"Contaminated Milk Ordered Off Shelves" 
Sacramento Union, June 15, 1978. 

There were radio announcements warning people, 
"not to drink raw milk from Alta-Dena Dairy." 



Californians believe in God, country -and Alta-Dena raw certified 
milk. 



96 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



For those who think government agencies are above 
conspiring against a private company, explain this. The 
state laboratory made its "discovery" that a batch of Alta- 
Dena raw certified milk was contaminated on June 4, 
1978. The Senate bill that would prevent the state health 
department from harassing the Alta-Dena Dairy was to 
be considered the following week. Instead of immedi- 
ately releasing their alarming findings that people were 
going to get sick from salmonella food poisoning and 
that a possible epidemic was in the offing from "contami- 
nated" raw milk, the press was not notified until the 
evening of June 9, just before the hearing! If the state 
laboratory had been correct in their findings, in the inter- 
vening five days ten thousand or more people could have 
been sick from salmonella food poisoning. 

In December, the controversy started all over again: 

"State Issues Warning about Alta-Dena Milk" Argus, 
Fremont, California, December 9, 1978. 

"Dairy's Raw Milk Again Under Fire" - Hemet News, 
Hemet, California, December 9, 1978. 

"Poisoned Milk Recalled" - Richmond Post, Oakland, 
California, December 15, 1978. 

In February, 1979, the attacks, like a broken record, 
started all over again: 

"Tainted Milk Ordered Off Market Shelves" -San 
Gabriel Valley Tribune, Covina, California, 
February 10, 1979. 

Again, the allegations were completely false. 

Things really got rough after Alta-Dena sued the 
state for $80,000,000 in damages. The state counterat- 
tacked. Assemblyman William Dannemyer, who had 
been the Alta-Dena attorney, began receiving some direct 



Milking the Good Guys 



97 



hits. His opponent for a Congressional seat. Bill Farris, 
announced to the press that the FBI had visited him con- 
cerning Dannemyer's possible "dealings with lobbyists" 
for Alta-Dena Dairy.* No investigation ever took place. 

A letter to the editor of the Fullerton Tribune, 
Fullerton, California, said this about the Bill Farris attack, 
"...Farris... seems to make a habit of suing his political 
opponents on charges that can't hold up in court... 
Dannemyer ...has continued to speak on the issue clearly 
without sinking to Farris' mud-slinging level." 

Dannemyer was elected to the United States House 
of Representatives where he continues to serve with dis- 
tinction. His only regret: You can't get raw milk in Wash- 
ington. 

After observing the Los Angeles County Certified 
Milk Commission in action, I can only conclude that the 
Commission is useless. Its members are sincere men who 
believe they are serving the high standards set by the 
Methods and Standards of the Milk Commission. But 
when the six commission members have to listen to the 
harangues of the health department and spend all of 
their commission time investigating the harassment of 
the only dairy in the state that has a vested interest in 
producing the cleanest milk possible, it becomes an 
exercise in futility. 

There are twenty dairies in California selling 
uncertified raw milk. This milk, in some cases, is proc- 
essed under highly questionable conditions. None of these 
dairies meet the standards of certified milk as does the Alta- 
Dena Dairy, and they are not inspected by the Milk Commis- 
sion. The commission exists solely for the purpose of 
inspecting the two dairies that are interested in produc- 
ing milk under this high standard. A member of the Milk. 



* Now why would the FBI visit a political opponent with no 
connection whatsoever to the milk industry? 



98 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



Commission admitted to me privately, "The whole thing 
is crazy. It’s a complete waste of time."* 

The State Health Department is responsible for in- 
specting other than certified dairies. The average dairy 
may get inspected ten times a year, if that. 

It should be noted that even raw milk produced 
under less than ideal circumstances, that is, not under 
certified standards, seldom causes disease. Although 
their record is not as good as that of Alta-Dena (which is, 
for all intents and purposes, perfect), they have been 
responsible for very little infectious disease. Most 
outbreaks have been caused by foods other than milk. 
This illustrates the fact that raw milk, if produced with 
just a modicum of cleanliness, is safe because of built-in 
safeguards that have not been destroyed by heating. 
These built-in safeguards are aided by modern refri- 
geration. But to be on the safe side,** don't drink raw 
milk unless it is certified. 

Conclusion: Require all milk to be certified to retain a 
safe and nutritious product for everyone. 

With all the adverse publicity, someone was bound 
to sue the dairy eventually. It is remarkable that, in spite 
of overt and covert encouragement by public health offi- 
cials, only one case has come to court. 

Mary Smith (fictitious name) sued Alta-Dena Certi- 
fied Dairy for damages, alleging pain and suffering due 
to contracting food poisoning from Alta-Dena raw certified 
milk. The bacteria isolated by the county and the California 
Public Health Department from Smith was salmonella 
montevideo. She blamed her condition on Alta-Dena raw 
certified milk even though she had had repeated episodes of 
diarrheal disease for over a year prior to the consumption of 
the raw milk; her doctors refused to testify that raw milk 
was responsible; and salmonella montevideo doesn't even 
occur in milk, raw or otherwise. 



* No, I can't tell you his name. He needs to stay on the Milk 
Commission. 

** And protect me from lawsuits. 



Milking the Good Guys 



99 



Such is the power of the press. The case was laughed 
out of court. 

A fourteen-year-old boy contracted salmonella gas- 
troenteritis. He could never remember drinking raw 
milk, although the family members, (who did not get 
sick), did drink Alta-Dena raw certified milk. As it 
turned out, the young man and his friend had been play- 
ing a little game of spitting toilet bowl water at each other. 
That's probably as good a method as any of guaranteeing 
a good case of salmonella gastroenteritis. The health de- 
partment labeled it as an "Alta-Dena associated case"! 

I have in my files many more equally preposterous 
cases. Alta-Dena has initiated an $80,000,000 suit against 
the state for harassment. And, as this book was being 
written, the California Health Department renewed the 
attack. A report of February, 1981, said: 

"Salmonellae have been recovered forty-five times 
since 1977 from California-produced raw milk that was 
distributed. All of the isolates were made from Alta- 
Dena's raw certified milk, taken both before and after 
bottling. Since Alta-Dena produces about ninety 
percent of raw milk sold in California, that dairy will 
more than likely be involved... when raw milk is found 
to be contaminated, or when raw milk is found to be 
associated with human illness. 

Previously, Alta-Dena had been identified in an in- 
vestigation of one hundred-thirteen human cases of 
Salmonella Dublin infection that occurred statewid... 
of those cases. ..thirty-one percent used Alta-Dena raw 
certified milk." 

As these are sophisticated men of science, it is hard 
to believe that this report, entirely false, was not deliber- 
ate and malicious. If not deliberate, then the Great Black 
Hole of Ignorance among medical scientists, at least in 
California, is indeed stupefying.* 



* In a survey of California legislators, the Department of Health was 
rated the worst in the state government. It was described as 
"inefficient, incompetent, and unresponsive." As you might expect, 
they get the most money — over four billion dollars a year. 



100 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



In 1982 and 1983 the battle shifted to Nevada. State 
inspectors seized some Alta-Dena milk from a health 
food store and claimed that it contained salmonella. The 
milk was 21 days old.* 

The California State Health Department, not one to 
miss an opportunity, went for the Alta-Dena jugular. In 
spite of the fact that the Food and Drug Administration, 
after three days of intensive investigation, found nothing 
of importance at the Alta-Dena lab; in spite of a clean bill 
of health on the milk (although it was 21 days old) from 
four different labs, including two of their own state and 
county labs, the health department issued warnings to the 
people of California not to drink Alta-Dena raw milk or 
even give it to their pets! 

When the state issues these propaganda attacks against 
Alta-Dena, consumers call the dairy in a panic. Paul 
Virgin, publicity director, tells them, "If you are worried 
about the milk, bring it in. We'll give you your money 
back, and I'll drink the milk."** 

Perhaps the most bizarre accusation against the dairy 
concerned a miscarriage. A 300-pound diabetic woman 
refused to heed the warnings of doctors. Two doctors would 
not take her case because of her irresponsibility. A midwife 
eventually delivered twins, decayed and stillborn and the 
whole mess was blamed on Alta-Dena raw milk! 

Maybe you think California Health Department bu- 
reaucrats are a special breed, more vicious and stupid 
than most. Let's move over to Georgia and check out 
their health bureaucrats. 

It's a special situation in Georgia because they have 
the Feds in the Center for Disease Control as well as their 
own homegrown variety of bureaucrat. 



* Alta-Dena, like any other food company, can't protect the consumer 
from irresponsible merchants. They shouldn't sell spoiled milk 
any more than spoiled meat. 

** Sometimes he drinks the condemned milk on television. 



Milking the Good Guys 



101 



ROSEBUD AND MATHIS DAIRY 

The name Mathis is as familiar to Atlantans as 
Margaret Mitchell. Even people who don't buy Mathis 
milk, including their competitors, will tell you that 
Mathis Certified Dairy is a quality operation. The dairy 
mascot, "Rosebud," is known to every school child in the 
surrounding counties. An average of two hundred fifty 
people a day visit the dairy on tours, and most of the 
children take a hand at milking "Rosebud." 

Raw milk sells well in Atlanta because the people 
trust Mathis. But, as with Alta-Dena, it hasn't been easy. 
The dairy was founded in 1917. Mr. Mathis, called "Mr. 
Lloyd" by just about everybody, is now 85 years old. His 
son Jack runs the dairy and has been the inspiration for 
the raw milk crusade in the southeastern United States. 
Without Mathis and Alta-Dena fighting this lonely battle 
at opposite ends of the country, there would be abso- 
lutely no nutritious milk available in this country. 

In the 50's, a law was passed in Georgia that allowed 
the sale of raw certified milk only by prescription of an 

M.D. This was a cumbersome, unworkable law that 
made it extremely difficult for consumers to obtain raw 
milk. That, of course, was the intent of the law. 

Frustrated by this unfair and discriminatory law. 
Jack Mathis, President of Mathis Certified Dairy in Decatur, 
Georgia, told the Commissioner of Agriculture that he 
was going to sell raw certified milk to anyone who wanted 
it with or without a prescription. This got everyone's 
attention, and a bill was soon introduced to take the 
restrictions off the sale of raw certified milk in Georgia. 

All hell broke loose. Not since the War Between the 
States* had there been such turmoil and show of emotion 
in the Georgia legislature. For forty days and forty nights 



Called the "Civil War" up North. 



102 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



the debate raged on. The state health department, the 
University of Georgia, all of the dairy organizations, the 
Medical Association of Georgia, and even the Parent/ 
Teachers Association worked themselves up into an 
emotional lather. You would have thought, watching this 
circus, that Mathis Dairy was trying to sell raw sewage 
rather than raw milk. In the minds of many of these 
hysterical, well-meaning, but uninformed people, one 
was as bad as the other. 

Members of the Parent /Teacher Association pick- 
eted the capitol building carrying signs imploring the 
legislature to "Save Pasteurized Milk for our Children." 
Pasteurized milk, of course, wasn't even the issue. One 
member of the legislature said that passage of the bill al- 
lowing the unrestricted sale of raw certified milk would 
be "going back to the dark ages." 

Dairy President Jack Mathis asked a learned profes- 
sor during the heated debate, "Don't you think people 
should be allowed to choose what they eat?" He replied, 
"No! It's time we legislate what people eat."* 

Organized dairy interests put out a "fact sheet" to 
convince legislators that they should vote against this bill 
to legalize the sale of raw certified milk. The fact sheet 
said that "no responsible dairy organization" in the state 
of Georgia supported the bill.** This included the Geor- 
gia Dairy Association, the Georgia Farm Bureau, and the 
Georgia Association of Dairy Cooperatives. The fact sheet 
also pointed out that "all government health agencies" 
and state school authorities were opposed to the bill. 



* Professors, like government bureaucrats, are prone to think that 
they know what's best for you. They may have to force you to 
drink pasteurized, homogenized milk, but it's for your own good. 

** Whatthey should have said was that none of the dairy organi- 
zations with a vested interest in producing cheap, cleaned up, 
dirty milk supported the bill. 




It's Time We Legislate What People Eat! 



104 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



The only groups supporting the bill, the fact sheet 
said, were "food faddists" and one little local dairy that 
"stands to gain commercially."* 

It was Mathis Certified Dairy against the world, or 
so it seemed. But there was one other group that backed 
the Mathis determination to produce clean milk. It was 
the people of Georgia. The bill passed the House by an 
overwhelming majority. 

The pasteurization fanatics didn't fold. The bill 
passed the Senate and then went back to the House for fi- 
nal approval. Clever, delaying tactics resulted in the bill 
dying because of adjournment of the Georgia legislature. 
The will of the people had been thwarted — or so it 
seemed. 

But they underestimated the courage and determi- 
nation of Jack Mathis. He called the Secretary of Agricul- 
ture and informed him that, since the people of Georgia 
had expressed their will, he would not let legislative 
double-dealing stop the flow of clean milk to his 
customers. 

A legislative hearing was set. At the hearing, one of 
the Department of Agriculture attorneys took young 
Mathis aside and whispered in his ear, "If my mama 
knew I was down here opposing Rosebud, she would kill 
me. I was raised on your milk!" 

Mathis lost. The case was sent to Superior Court for 
a decision. The Superior Court reversed the decision of 
the Department of Agriculture and Mathis Dairy contin- 
ued to serve the people of Georgia with clean, unadulter- 
ated milk. 

As we found out in California, bureaucrats will never 
forgive you for beating them in court.** Mathis received 



* Producing clean raw milk is an expensive process. Most people 
don’t understand that clean certified milk is worth the difference 
in price. Mathis would be better off financially just to forget about 
raw certffied milk. 

** They think the courts are theirs to be used to carry out their will. 



Milking the Good Guys 



105 



national publicity when he went to Iowa to defend a 
dairyman who was selling raw milk. When he got home, 
he found seven physicians at the dairy, sent by the Center 
for Disease Control, to inspect the dairy herd. The State 
of Georgia hadn't been able to send Rosebud to the 
slaughterhouse, so the Feds took over. 

"It looked like germ warfare had set in," Mathis said. 
They checked every cow once, twice, and then a third 
time. After a long delay, the CDC admitted that their 
inspectors had found nothing.* 

While this "inspection" was going on, the CDC was 
attacking on another flank. The experts at CDC decided to 
make an issue of Campylobacter, a mild gastrointestinal 
disease that causes diarrhea. They conducted a survey of 
households in an attempt to link Campylobacter infections 
to Mathis raw certified milk. They found no correlation 
between infection and Mathis milk, but they were able to 
turn their "survey" into a propaganda campaign against 
the dairy anyway. 

A typical case was the housewife who called to cancel 
her milk order. The Center for Disease Control agents 
had confused and frightened her. Her ten-month-old 
baby had diarrhea. The agents told her that the infection 
was Campylobacter caused by Mathis raw milk. 

"I don't understand how they came to that conclu- 
sion," she told Mr. Mathis. "I told them, 'Look, my hus- 
band is the big milk drinker, and he didn't get sick. My 
ten-month-old doesn't drink the milk, but he's the one who 
got sick. Do you think I'm a moron?' For some reason, 
they're really out to get you, Mr. Mathis." 

A man called to cancel his raw milk order. The CDC 
told him that his pregnant wife's Campylobacter infection 
was caused by Mathis raw certified milk. "And not only 
that," he exclaimed, "she gave it to my two dogs!"** 



* Very few dairies could withstand such a rigorous inspection. 
A certified dairy will pass every time. 

** How did she do that? 



106 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



Where does this unpronounceable Campylobacter 
germ come from? It comes primarily from poultry, espe- 
cially chicken and turkey, and the water that comes out of 
your kitchen faucet.* 

The CDC remains unconcerned about these major 
sources of the infection.** They look even more ridiculous 
(and conspiratorial) when it is realized that Campylobacter 
has neuer been recovered from raw milk. The reason for this 
is simple, and the CDC knows it: raw milk contains 
lactoperoxidase which inactivates Campylobacter. 6 

A high official asked Jack Mathis: "Why don’t you 
just sell out and retire rich? Why fight it?" 

"I will continue to sell clean milk to the people of 
Georgia," he replied. "When I am no longer allowed to 
sell unadulterated milk, I will close the dairy." 

Mathis and Alta-I)ena set an example for the rest of 
the country, but they need your help. Form a group to in- 
fluence your state legislators. Call it MAMA — Mothers 
Against Milk Adulteration.*** Buy and distribute this 
book.**** Ask your dairy why it doesn't produce milk 
clean enough not to need heating. If Mathis and Alta- 
Dena can do it, why can't they? 



REFERENCES 

1. New West, August 14, 1978. 

2. Ibid. 

3. Los Angeles Herald Examiner, June 15, 1978. 

4. Santa Ana Register, June 11, 1978. 

5. Luechtefeld, J. Chem. Microbiol., 13:266-268. 

6. Doyle & Roman, Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 44:1154-1158. 



* Flying poultry, known as birds, poop into tho water supply. 

** 22 % of chicken samples from retail stores have been found to be 
contaminated with Campylobacter; 94% of turkey. 5 

*** Maybe you can think of a better name. 

I have to make a living too. 



**** 



Chapter VII 

UDDER MENACE 

HOMOGENIZATION OF MILK 

You've got to learn two new words. They are 
"plasmalogen" and "XO".* 

Current dogma says that saturated fat, especially 
animal fat, and cholesterol are the culprits in atheroscle- 
rosis. A look at eating patterns over the past eighty years 
will reveal how unlikely it is that animal fat and choles- 
terol are the causes of hardening of the arteries. We dis- 
cuss this in detail in Chapter XII. A review of food 
patterns shows that animal fat consumption has not 
changed materially since 1900. If animal fat consumption 
is the cause of atherosclerosis, then why was it an un- 
common disease before the mid-20th century? 

How does one explain the Masai tribe of East Africa? 
The Masai are cattle herders. Their diet is nothing but 
meat, milk, and blood. That's as high a fat and cho- 
lesterol diet as you can get. Yet atherosclerosis is practi- 
cally unknown among the Masai tribesmen. 

The fat-cholesterol school of atherogenesis** had an 
answer to this paradox. The Masai have an incredibly 
high level of physical activity. They walk as much as 
sixty miles a day. The exercise, they said, was the reason 
the Masai had low blood cholesterol levels and little 
hardening of the arteries. 

This sounded pretty good until another group of sci- 
entists pointed to the natives of East Finland. These lum- 
berjack types expend more energy chopping wood than 
the Masai do walking sixty miles a day. Yet, they have the 



* Keep hold of these words, because they’re the key to understanding 
why homogenized milk can kill you. XO stands for xanthine 
oxidase, an enzyme. 

** Atherogenesis: causing hardening of the arteries. 



108 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



highest death rate in the world from atherosclerotic heart 
disease. 

The reason the lumberjacks had such a high inci- 
dence of heart disease, the animal fat theorists said, was 
because of the high animal fat and cholesterol content of 
their diet. And they proved it, they claimed, by cutting 
down the animal fat level of the East Finnish population. 
There was a dramatic decrease in the degree of athero- 
sclerotic heart disease with a switch to vegetable fat. 

Conclusive proof — right?* 

While they were altering the diet, the team of re- 
searchers also conducted an intensive (and successful) 
anti-smoking campaign. The lumberjacks were very 
heavy smokers. The reduction in smoking was clearly the 
major factor, and probably the only factor, leading to a decrease 
in heart attacks. The decrease in smoking was a strong 
enough factor to overcome the unwise reduction in con- 
sumption of animal fat and increase in vegetable fat. 

As usual, one study proves nothing. No one has 
been able to duplicate the Finnish study concerning 
either hypothesis - smoking reduction or reduction in 
animal fat in the diet. 

What about primitive Eskimos? They eat blubber. But 
they have little atherosclerotic heart disease.** 

Acting on faulty statistics or at least statistics that in 
themselves had no significance, the spokesmen for 
organized medicine recommended that Americans make 
changes in their diet by reducing the consumption of 
saturated animal fat and cholesterol. The American people 
took their advice halfway. They did not decrease animal 
fat consumption significantly, but they greatly increased 
their consumption of vegetable fats and the situation got 
worse. 



** 



Wrong. 

On a trip to the Arctic Circle, I tried some blubber. I guess they 
eat it because they have to. 



Udder Menace 



109 



If saturated animal fat consumption hasn't changed, 
what has changed that would cause an increase in 
atherosclerosis? You will find out what vegetable fat does 
to your arteries in the Margarine chapter, but Dr. Kurt A. 
Oster says that the homogenization of milk is another 
major cause of atherosclerosis. 

In the homogenization process, the fat particles of 
the cream are broken up. This is done by straining the fat 
through tiny pores under great pressure. The resulting fat 
particles are so small (one-millionth of a meter) that they 
stay in suspension. So the cream is evenly distributed 
throughout the milk. Most Americans under the age of 
forty have never seen milk in its natural state with a 
cream layer. They have been so programmed to drinking 
milk with an even texture that the sight of cream floating 
on milk is usually met with revulsion. It looks yucky to 
the modern eye. 

Oster, Zikakis, and other investigators discovered 
that the substance plasmalogen* was depleted in the 
areas of the heart where a blockage had taken place. The 
walls of the arteries not affected by the atherosclerotic 
process contained the normal amount of plasmalogen. 
Where the arteries were hardened, XO had replaced the 
plasmalogen. 

So they began to look around for the possible dietary 
source of the XO. Dairy products, they discovered, are 
the only source of this lethal enzyme.** But milk and 
milk products have been a source of food for centuries. 
Heart disease is a disease of modern times. At least it wasn't 
common until the 20th century. What had happened to 
cause XO to be absorbed into the bloodstream, attack 
plasmalogen, and then deposit on the arteries? What 
significant changes had taken place in milk processing? 

The first big change was pasteurization which has 
contributed greatly to the degenerative disease epidem- 



** 



Did you remember it? 
Human milk contains no XO. 



110 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



ics, including atherosclerosis. The other radical change 
was homogenization. 

XO, Oster discovered, was attached to the fat glob- 
ules of milk. Normal fat globules are too big to go 
through the gut wall and into the blood stream. But after 
homogenization, they pass through easily. They increase 
in number some one-hundred times and with them goes 
the deadly XO. 

Critics said that absorption of XO from the intestine 
was impossible because it was such a large molecule. The 
XO must be "endogenous," that is, from the human liver. 
As with many "impossible" things in science, XO absorp- 
tion from the intestine was only impossible to those who 
wished they had discovered it first. Gregoriadis and 
Weissmant proved that these large molecules are indeed 
absorbed and thereby they opened new avenues of 
thought and research in medicine.* 

But the critics still were not silenced. Okay, they 
said, maybe it could be absorbed, but it won't be because 
that large a molecule (XO) can't survive the digestive 
process in the stomach and small intestine, "Not possi- 
ble." Gregoriadis and Zikakis again proved them wrong. 2 
They proved that some remarkable little armored cars 
called "liposomes"** do indeed protect XO from digestive 
enzymes and carry them into the blood stream. 

The milk industry says don't worry, pasteurization 
kills the XO. It does kill some of it.*** But at the 170° F 
pasteurization temperatures, 40% of the XO is left in the 
active state. 

We've got another problem. You know that Vitamin 
D the milk producers have so kindly added to your milk? 
In the first place, it isn't a vitamin. It's a hormone like 
cortisone. Second, it's helping XO harden your arteries. 



* If big bad molecules, like XO, could be absorbed through the gut, 
then so could big good molecules, like antibodies. See Chapter XI. 

** You don't have to remember that. 

*** Along with all the good enzymes you need for good health. 



Udder Menace 



111 



Doctors Ross and Oster 3 have discovered that 
vitamin D 3 , the one they add to pasteurized milk and 
other processed foods, activates XO . In the presence of 
testosterone, the male sex hormone, it activates XO even 
more. So a male, drinking pasteurized, homogenized. 
Vitamin D, "Grade A" milk is really asking for it. 

Dr. Oster discovered that the B vitamin, folic acid, is 
protective against the destructive effects of XO. You 
shouldn't drink pasteurized. Grade A, etc., etc., under 
any circumstances, but if you insist upon drinking it, 
take a folic acid supplement with B12 and vitamin B6.* 

A Univeristy of California group did a study on XO 
and reported that Oster was wrong. They said XO was 
absorbed in only infinitesimal amounts. Their experi- 
ments were vague and irrelevant. They made no attempt 
to actually repeat Oster's experiments which is the way 
to prove or disprove a piece of research. The California 
report, which merely served to confuse the issue, was 
funded by big cash from the homogenization gang — the 
National Dairy Council.** 

Oster's work has since been largely confirmed at the 
University of Delaware. The American Heart Association 
continues to look the other way and pursue dangerous 
chemicals as a treatment for atherosclerosis. Most of the 
American Heart Association's bills are paid by drug com- 
pany advertising, and, "If industry pays the tab..." 

Now, 20 years later, the XO theory of atherosclerosis 
is being challenged again. Dr. Mary Enig reports on two 
independent studies that refute Dr. Oster's claims. The 
authors claim there is no evidence that XO is found in the 
tissues of the arteries in significant amounts. They didn't 



* You will then have a false sense of security and can enjoy the 
calcium dystrophy syndrome, colitis, and bad teeth. 

** That's known as udder politics or, as researchers from this same 
university put it: "Money can influence -or dictate- what research 
gets done. If industry pays the tab, they've got a right to call the 
tune ." 5 



112 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



just complain about Oster's work; they did studies. There 
is more biochemistry here than you want to know but 
one question pretty well sums it up: Since sheep and goat 
milk are both naturally homogenized, and they do not 
form XO in the body, why pick on cow's milk? And just 
one more little question (well, not little, global actually): 
If homogenized cow milk causes atherosclerosis, why is 
it that millions of people who don't drink homogenized 
milk get heart disease? 

It looks like Oster may have been right for the wrong 
reason. Enig comments that casein and whey proteins are 
released by the homogenization process and this may 
account for the increased allergenicity of homogenized 
cow milk. (And remember, goat and sheep milk, 
naturally homogenized, have a low incidence of allergy.) 

There are other reasons for not homogenizing milk. 
One of them is "taint". That's not just a southern collo- 
quialism for ain't. In the dairy industry it refers to a 
deterioration of the milk fat leading to off-flavors vari- 
ously described as a "cardboard," "oily," or "tallowy" 
taste. The more of the surface of the fat that is exposed to 
oxidation, the more the taint. Homogenization greatly in- 
creases the amount of fat surface. There are friendly bac- 
teria in milk that aid in preventing oxidation of the fat. 
The enzyme catalase also helps by inactivating oxygen. 
But both of them, the friendly bacteria and the catalase, 
went up the flue when the milk was pasteurized. No 
wonder milk doesn't taste like the good old days, and 
consumption continues to decline. 

As we were about to button up this book, an epidemic 
of cholesterol phobia again gripped the nation. The Journal 
of the American Medical Association reported work done by 
the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute* that proved 
cholesterol is Public Enemy Number One. 



* Be suspicious of any group whose title starts out with "National". 
You know what happens when bureaucrats try to help you. 



Udder Menace 



113 



Tom Valentine, reporting in the weekly newspaper 
Spotlight, called it "Commercial Science" — science di- 
rected toward improving marketability. "The stakes are 
high," he said, "the vegetable oil industry rides the crest 
of the anti-cholesterol wave." 

The Reader's Digest entered the anti-cholesterol war 
in their June, 1984 edition. This government report, they 
said, "put an end to wishful thinking." Dietary choles- 
terol is the killer.* 

Dr. Oster wrote a blistering and well-reasoned chal- 
lenge to the AMA report. The Journal of the American 
Medical Association refused to print it. But the news- 
paper Spotlight has a penchant for puncturing pompous 
and pusillanimous publications. They gave it good 
coverage in the August 27, 1984 issue. 

The AMA report was naive at best. Using a potent 
and dangerous drug, cholestyramine, the Journal of the 

American Medical Association reported that 
lowering the serum cholesterol reduced the number of 
heart attacks in the treated group as compared with 
"control" patients that didn't receive the drug. Oster 
pointed out that the total mortality was reduced by 0.1 
percent. You don't need a degree in statistics to realize 
that one in a thousand improvement is meaningless. 

What was significant was the 175% increase in 
deaths due to violence and accidents in the drug-treated 
group.** 

This was supposed to have been a "double blind" 
study.*** But most of the patients on the drug were throw- 



* Remember what the Reader's Digest told you about raw milk? 
See Chapter IV. 

** Cholestyramine drives some people wacky. 

*** Neither patient nor doctor is supposed to know whether the 
patient is taking a placebo or the drug. 



114 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



ing up, so they knew they were on the drug and so did 
their doctor.* 

I'll tell you something that might give you a coro- 
nary. This "scientific" study costs you, the taxpayer, 150 
million dollars. 

Here are the reasons for not drinking homogenized 
milk. 

1) An increased susceptibility to spoilage because 
of fat surface exposure. (2) Tainting. (3) 
Increased fat absorption beyond what nature in- 
tended with unknown effect. 

Here are the reasons for drinking homogenized 
milk: 

(1) You can't get anything but homogenized milk 
and, besides... 

2) The Federal Trade Commission says that homog- 
enization is harmless, and homogenized milk is a 
"natural product." 

3) You don't believe what I have told you about ho- 
mogenized milk and, anyway... 

4) You like playing Russian roulette with your 
health. 



Powerful drugs always have side effects. That’s why double 
blind studies are usually worthless. 



Udder Menace 



115 



REFERENCES 

1. Weissman, Ann. New York Academy Science, 308,235, 
1978. 

2. Zikakis, et al, J. Dairy Science, 60, 533, 1977. 

3. Personal telephone interview with Dr. Donald J. Ross, 
Fairfield University, January, 1982. 

4. Oster, A.J.C.R., Volume II, #1, April, 1971. 

5. Nutrition Today, November /December, 1981, pp. 29. 

6. The Spotlight, Aug. 27, 1984. 

7. Clifford, A.J., American J. Clinical Nutrition, 1983:38 



Chapter VIII 

UDDER FOLLY 

Pasteurized, homogenized milk is bad enough, but 
wait until you hear about the milk substitutes. 

You may now purchase, from your neighborhood 
grocer, pasteurized, homogenized dipotassium and cal- 
cium phosphate, with hydrogenated vegetable fat, 
sodium caseinate, sugar (of course), artificial flavoring 
(of course), guar gum, "NATURAL color,"* carrageenan, 
salt, and all blended with that wonderful food, sodium 
silicoaluminate.** This chemical concoction looks like 
milk and tastes somewhat like milk. But there the 
resemblance ends. 

One manufacturer of pseudo milk guarantees the 
distributor that there are no more than 20,000 bacteria 
per cubic centimeter. That's twice the allowable bacteria 
count of raw certified milk. We had a sample of one of 
these industrial wonders tested by the Georgia 
Department of Agriculture. They found 110,000 bacteria 
per cubic centimeter! Bugs just love to grow in powdered 
milk and milk substitutes. 

The fat used in most of these ersatz milk prepara- 
tions is coconut oil. They use coconut oil because it is 



* The company capitalized the word"NATURAL. "They're proud of 
that. 

** To those of you who are not chemistry professors, that is also 
known as sand. 



118 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



cheap. That's also why they use it in soap.* But I'll bet 
you haven't eaten soap since you were a kid and your 
mother caught you saying "s— t". At least you knew what 
you were eating.** They also use coconut oil in some 
baby formulas. Coconut oil is actually very nutritious 
but your babies should be getting mother's milk or raw 
cow's milk. Coconut oil is a third choice. 

One of the biggest get-rich schemes since the Florida 
land boom and the Dutch tulip craze is the high-powered 
promotion now going on for these milk substitutes made 
from the waste product of cheese production called 
whey. 

Business has been so phenomenal that the compa- 
nies have gone into night shifts according to one pro- 
moter. Automated equipment has been installed that will 
enable them to produce 7500 pounds a minute. Even 
America's super cows look like lactating mice by com- 
parison. The profits? The last time we checked, it was 
well over a million dollars a day. As greed fever abates, 
this figure will undoubtedly fall. There are only so many 
suckers to go around. 

How do they do it? It's similar to the old pyramid 
game, but now called multi-level selling: buy one, sell 
one, get them to sell one, etc. It works whether you are 
selling soap or phony milk.*** 

The dairymen used to throw the whey down the 
drain, but it clogged the sewers. They tried fermenting it 
for methane gas production. That was unsuccessful. 
Feeding it to the pigs seemed a good idea, but even the 
pigs didn’t like it, so they used it for fertilizer. It's known 
as "the whey disposal problem." 1 



* It makes great soap. Safeguard, Lifebuoy, and Dove are all 
made from coconut oil. 

** It's a wise man who knows his fodder. 

*** It's the American way. I just don't think phony milk is good for 
you or your family. 



Udder Folly 



119 



The general rule seems to be, "When all else fails, 
feed it to humans." So a Salt Lake City outfit took whey 
residue, threw in some sugar, coconut oil, a bunch of 
GRAS chemicals* and five synthetic vitamins, and 
presto — a product that is "33% to 42% more nutritious 
than milk"! 

Pigs and people wouldn't eat whey because it tastes 
awful. But junk food promoters have proven that the 
American people will eat anything if you put enough 
sugar and artificial flavoring in it and call it "natural" and 
"nutritious." The stuff is selling like ten-cent gasoline. 
People won't drink gasoline,** but beleaguered by high 
prices, the American people are looking for cheap food 
substitutes. The food industry has found the way, 
although the eventual cost in bad health will be heavy 
indeed. 

We used to be concerned about atherosclerosis in 
young adults. Korean War autopsy studies revealed ad- 
vanced atherosclerosis in eighteen year olds. But we now 
see atherosclerosis in childhood ! Counterfeit milk is not 
the sole cause, or probably a major cause (yet) for the 
physical degeneration that we are witnessing. But it can 
be added to bogus butter, chemical ice cream, cola drinks 
and other industrial solvents, swimming pool grade 
drinking water, packaged sugar bombs called power- 
packed breakfast foods and fast food restaurants serving 
quickie foods composed primarily of embalmed meat, 
fish or chicken fried in vegetable oil. (The wrong ones as 
they are the cheapest.) 



* GRAS stands for "Generally Regarded As Safe." Doesn't that make 
you feel secure? Red Dye #2 was a GRAS chemical until they 
found it causes cancer in laboratory animals. It is no longer GRAS 
since they found it will put you under the grass. 

** Maybe they would if you added enough sugar and GRAS 
chemicals. 



120 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



Back in the old days, skim milk was called "Blue 
John" because of its bluish tint. Skim and low-fat milk 
would not have reached their present state of popularity, 
in spite of doctors recommending it, without consider- 
able manipulation to improve the taste. Skim and low-fat 
milk simply don't have the rich flavor and consistency of 
whole milk. But the food technologists could make saw- 
dust taste good if someone created a market for it.* To 
give the Blue John "body, texture, and mouth-feel," a 
technical bulletin says, 2 you add Crest Lac #300. This 
additive is a superheated dry milk. The protein is "dena- 
tured"** and "modified." The process is patented, so they 
won't tell you what happens when they "modify" it.*** 
Feed it to a baby calf, and he'll die. 

Why do they use this stuff instead of regular dry 
milk? You guessed it. It's cheaper. Look at the label on 
your skim milk bottle, "Grade A pasteurized skimmed 
milk with high heat to increase absorption — 'Super- 
heated' Grade A nonfat milk solids added." Now you 
know what that means — junk food. 

"Filled" milk was one of the first adulterations of 
natural milk. Fifty years ago Congress enacted legislation 
prohibiting the interstate transportation of this doctored 
product made from skim milk and vegetable oil. 

One Charles Hauser, a dairy farmer from Illinois 
who was in the filled milk business, spent a fortune 
fighting the Filled Milk Act and went to jail rather than 
give in.**** With the present fat and cholesterol obsession 



* As a matter of fact they have. They put it in some brands of 
bread and call it "fibre." 

** That's a very descriptive word. It means the protein is no 
longer as nature intended. The nature has been taken out. 

*** After you denature or kill something, you have to embalm it, 
right? 

**** Being dedicated to a cause doesn't necessarily make you right. 



Udder Folly 



121 



of scientists, filled milk has enjoyed a revival, and 
Hauser would appear to have been ahead of his time. In 
1973 the federal courts declared the Filled Milk Act un- 
constitutional. The Food and Drug Administration de- 
clared that filled milk was a safe and nutritious food.* 

Because of the relentless propaganda of the 
cholesterol/fat school of nutrition and the unceasing ef- 
forts of the ersatz milk manufacturers, consumption of 
unadulterated milk, that is raw milk, is practically non- 
existent except in Georgia and California. Consumption 
of pasteurized, homogenized milk is also declining be- 
cause of the cholesterol propaganda. While we do not la- 
ment the decline in pasteurized, homogenized milk 
consumption, it is a nutritional disaster that fresh raw milk 
is being thrown out along with the bad milk, and "filled milk" 
is gaining in popularity. It is guilt by association. Not 
enough people understand the problem. So milk 
substitutes have taken 30% of the dairy market. 

The word got around that I was going to zap ersatz 
milk in this book. Then one day. Wham! The president of 
Meadow Fresh, the largest of the imitation milk produc- 
ers, landed in my office. 

President Roy Brog created Meadow Fresh.** He is 
not without credentials, having obtained his master's de- 
gree in dairy science from Utah State University.*** He 
sincerely believes in his product. He said that people 
have come to him with tears in their eyes to thank him 
for creating Meadow Fresh. He is a man with a mission. 

When asked how much money the company was 
making, he declined to say.**** However, he did reveal 



* That should make you suspicious. 

** What a misnomer. It doesn’t come from a meadow, but a 
laboratory and it sure as hell isn't fresh. 

*** I checked him out. 

I knew it was none of my business, but I just wondered. 



**** 



122 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



that the company has one hundred thousand distributors 
and produces 400,000 gallons of product every day. The 
production, he said, will soon double. Not bad for a com- 
pany that is only a few years old. 

Pigs and people wouldn't eat whey because it tastes 
awful. But junk food promoters have proven that the 
American people will eat anything if you put enough 
sugar and artificial flavoring in it and call it "natural" and 
"nutritious." The stuff is selling like ten-cent gasoline. 
People won't drink gasoline,* but beleaguered by high 
prices, the American people are looking for cheap food 
substitutes. The food industry has found the way, 
although the eventual cost in bad health will be heavy 
indeed. 

HOLD ON A MINUTE ! Remember that the above 
scurrilous attack against whey was written in 1984. That 
was (using all my toes and fingers) over 20 years ago. I 
am happy to report that at least one aspect of the dairy 
industry has improved. The whey people have gotten 
their act together and changed whey into an edible and 
tasty product. 

Don't tear that page you just read out of the book. 
It is interesting history and you need a little history 
once and a while. The old way destroyed fragile whey 
proteins by high- temperature processing. But fresh, 
high-quality whey can be used to make excellent lacto- 
fermented foods and drinks. You can make your own 
old-fashioned sauerkraut from cabbage, salt, and the 
fresh whey you got from the cheese you just made. 

Anywhey, make sure it's fresh and not processed. 
With your first taste of that home-made sauerkraut 
you'll be shouting: "gamutlickeit!" 

Meadow Fresh claims to have improved on Mother 
Nature's natural product: 



FOOTNOTE IS MISSING 



Udder Folly 



123 



— 40% more nutritious than milk. 

— A suitable substitute for milk for babies over 12 
months of age. 

— Costs less than milk. 

— Low in fat. 

— Suitable for those with allergies to milk. 

A review by the Utah Trade Commission and the 
Utah State Department of Agriculture resulted in an or- 
der by the State of Utah to Meadow Fresh Farms to 
modify some of its claims. An agreement, dated July 29, 
1981, was filed stating that Meadow Fresh will change its 
labels, promotional materials and marketing information 
so as not to mislead the consuming public in the follow- 
ing areas: 

• Meadow Fresh products will not be represented 
for use in infant formulas. 

• Meadow Fresh products will not be represented as 
containing no cholesterol. 

• Meadow Fresh products will not be represented as 
being equal to, nutritionally superior to, or di- 
rectly comparable with cow's or human milk. 

• Meadow Fresh products will not be represented as 
being suitable for consumption by persons who 
are allergic to milk without any adverse reactions. 

• Meadow Fresh products will not be represented as 
being curative for various diseases and illnesses. 

Alaska went further. They hit Meadow Fresh with a 
fine. Meadow Fresh admitted to charges brought against 
them by the Alaska attorney general 3 that they had made 
false or misleading claims about the cholesterol and calo- 
rie content of Meadow Fresh, government "approval" of 
their product and its nutritional superiority over milk. 
The state socked them with a $20,000 fine for restitution 



124 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



to residents who had bought the product and for costs of 
the investigation. (That would be at least $50,000 today.) 

The Food and Drug Administration also went after 
Meadow Fresh for its "exaggerated claims that they were 
nutritionally equal or superior to milk, contained no cho- 
lesterol and were suitable as substitutes for cow's milk 
and mother's milk ." 4 The FDA sometimes gets it right.* 
The American Academy of Pediatrics has stated that 
imitation milks should not be the major caloric source for 
infants and young children.** 

As you might expect, the dairy industry has come 
out strong against imitation milks, pointing out the nutri- 
tional inferiority of the imitations. If I had to choose be- 
tween the dairy industry's heated and homogenized milk 
and a vegetable oil — GRAS chemical combination, I 
would take the inferior milk. Don't get me wrong. I'm not 
taking the side of the National Dairy Association. We're 
talking about the lesser of evils.*** 

Robert E. Rich, Sr., the developer of the phony 
"cream" they inevitably serve you in America's fast food 
eateries, hopes that, "Someday you may have to go to the 
zoo to see a cow." Do you suppose Rich is biased? Did 
you ever read the label on one of those cute little "cream" 
cups? The main ingredients are sugar and vegetable oil. 
The rest is sodium caseinate mono and diglycerides and 
dipotassium phosphate, chemical flavors and chemical 
colors. That's the list of ingredients on Coffee-Mate from 
the Carnation Company, the home of contented cows. 
(Let me reiterate: coconut oil is a nutritious food in its 
proper place.) 



* Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 

** These same pediatricians prescribe infant formulas with a soy oil 
base. I guess they don’t read labels. See Chapter IX. 

*** I say pox on both their houses. 



Nutrient Analysis of Meadow Fresh Imitation Milk Compared to Various Real Milks 
(Per 8 Ounce Serving, Regular Dilution/Strength) 


(3) 

Instantized 
Non-Fat 
Dry Milk 


(N 

00 


11.9 


o 

00 


NO 

T — 1 


539 


280e 


(3) 

Human 

Milk 


rH 

rH 


17.0 


2.5 


10.8 


593 


79 


(3) 

2% Milk 

With 

Non-Fat 

Milk 

Solids 

Added 

(2% Fat) 


125 


12.2 


8.5 


LO 


500 


313 


(3) 

2% 

Milk 
(2% Fat) 


T 1 

C\| 

T — 1 


11.7 


rH 

00 


LO 


500 


297 


(3) 

Whole 

Milk 

(3.3% Fat) 


o 

LO 

T — 1 


Vll 


o 

00 


00 


307 


rH 

Oh 

04 


(2) 

Analysis 

Of 

Meadow 

Fresh 

Chocolate 

Flavor 


CO 

LO 

T — 1 


25.8 


2.0 


LO 


605 


63 


(2) 

Analysis 

Of 

Meadow 

Fresh 

Plain 

Flavor 


153 


VOZ 


5.7 


LO 


895 


132 


Claim 

(1) 

Meadow 

Fresh 


93 


13 


3.2 


CO 


1000 


o 

LO 

rH 


Nutrients 


Calories 


Carbohydrate (gm) 


Protein (gm) 


Fat (gm) 


Vitamin A (IU) 


*Calcium (mg) 



: Brog claims 200 in his "Defense of Meadow Farms. 



Nutrient Analysis of Meadow Fresh Imitation Milk Compared to Various Real Milks 
(Per 8 Ounce Serving, Regular Dilution/Strength) 


(3) 

Instantized 
Non-Fat 
Dry Milk 


.39 


.07 


N/A 


.09 


(3) 

Human 

Milk 


.09 


.07 


N/A 


CO 

O 


(3) 

2% Milk 

With 

Non-Fat 

Milk 

Solids 

Added 

(2% Fat) 


ZV 


C\1 

T 1 


100 


.10 


(3) 

2% 

Milk 
(2% Fat) 


.40 


C\1 

T 1 


100 


.10 


(3) 

Whole 

Milk 

(3.3% Fat) 


.40 


C\| 

t — i 


o 

o 

t-H 


.09 


(2) 

Analysis 

Of 

Meadow 

Fresh 

Chocolate 

Flavor 


.12 


T— 1 


N/A 


N/A 


(2) 

Analysis 

Of 

Meadow 

Fresh 

Plain 

Flavor 


.26 


.36 


N/A 


N/A 


Claim 

(1) 

Meadow 

Fresh 


.42 


N/A 


100 


.09 


Nutrients 


Riboflavin (mg) 


Iron (mg) 


Vitamin D (IU) 


Thiamin (mg) 



0) 

0) 



c 

o 

a 

Jh 

£ 

C 



u 

d 

'd 

o 

Jh 

O. 



PH 

c 

_o 

03 

a 

u 

£ 

S 



o 

'd 

(3 

QJ 



(2) State of Utah; Department of Agriculture; June 1, 1981. 

(3) Composition of Foods: "Dairy and Egg Products; Raw, Processed, Prepared," Agriculture Handbook 8-1; USDA: 
Agriculture Research Service; it's 01-077; 01-079; 01-080; 01-107. November 1976. 



Udder Folly 



127 



Oski, in his anti-milk book 5 says, "In the not too dis- 
tant future, milk may be so transformed that you won't 
be able to recognize it." (1977) He was certainly right on 
target with that prediction. 

These powdered milk substitutes and even regular 
powdered milk cause an increase in cavities. They are de- 
ficient in the essential amino acid, lysine. A Penn State 
University research group fed lysine-deficient milk to 
laboratory rats. Rat teeth are quite similar to humans in 
their physiological and biochemical makeup. They devel- 
oped rampant cavities. 6 

There's another phony milk you should know about. 
It's called UHT milk. The dairy industry is producing this 
one in an attempt to regain business lost to filled milk 
vegetable products and other junk beverages. 

UHT stands for ultra high temperature. What it means 
is that milk has been heated to such a high temperature 
that it is sterilized, just like surgical instruments. It can 
be shipped in unrefrigerated trucks — a tremendous 
savings to the dairymen. It will sit on a shelf, unrefri- 
gerated, for months without spoiling. The reason it won't 
spoil is because no self-respecting bug will eat it. Bugs 
are smart. They like fresh food with nutrient value, not 
steam-cleaned pseudo food. 

"Steam cleaning" is not just a figure of speech. That's 
exactly what they do. The method is described in Dairy 
Record, which is the national news magazine of the dairy 
industry, "Direct steam ...is added directly into the prod- 
uct, or... the product is added to the steam." They blast 
the milk at a temperature of 300°F! No wonder it will 
keep without refrigeration. Plaster of Paris will keep the 
same way.* 



It's probably about as good for you. 



128 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



But the consumer is being oversold on the keeping 
qualities of this stuff. Once the package is opened, it will 
eventually spoil. It won't turn into safe, sour milk. But, 
like pasteurized milk, it will become rancid. Prediction: A 
false sense of security, caused by over-selling of UHT's 
keeping properties [may] lead to outbreaks of food 
poisoning. 

The dairy industry has now refined its counterattack 
against the imitation milk invasion. You fight fire with 
fire, so why not junk milk against junk imitation of milk? 

Their new junk food product called Sip-Ups can sit 
on the shelf for months without refrigeration just like the 
imitation powdered milks. It is composed of the new 
UHT, superheated milk which is low-fat (See Chapter III 
about low-fat milk). It contains various imitation flavors 
such as vanillin and, of course, lots of sugar. 

The adverse effect on your health caused by even 
moderately heating milk was known over fifty years ago. 
In 1930 a fascinating article was published by the First 
International Congress of Microbiology meeting in Paris. 7 
Dr. Paul Kouchakoff of the Institute of Clinical Chemistry, 
Lausanne, Switzerland, reported on the way the blood re- 
acts to foods. Each food has a critical temperature above 
which the blood will react in a protective way by increasing 
the number of white blood cells. They are soldiers coming 
to defend against a lethal foreign invader. 

Dr. Kouchakoff determined that the critical tempera- 
ture above which milk becomes recognized by the white 
cells of the blood as an enemy of the body is 191 °F. UHT 
milk is heated to 300° F. 

They also add "vitamin" D3. Vitamin D isn't really a 
vitamin but a steroid hormone like cortisone. D3, used in 
Sip-Ups, has been proven to be an "angiotoxic risk 
factor." 8 That means, in plain language, that "vitamin" D 
can mess up your arteries and cause arteriosclerosis, 
which leads to high blood pressure, heart attacks, strokes 



Udder Folly 



129 



and kidney failure.* (Natural vitamin D found in fish 
oil is an excellent supplement.) 

Can you guess what the main thrust of the advertis- 
ing for this sugar-coated, angiotoxic risk factor is? Better 
nutrition for your kids! 

What can you do? Avoid these man-made products. 
Educate your children about the importance of eating 
fresh food, as uncooked as possible, and set an example 
for them. You can make a good start by feeding your 
family raw certified milk. If it's illegal in your state, do 
something about it. 



REFERENCES 

1. Food Processing, October, 1981. 

2. Crest Foods Technical Bulletin #300. 

3. Case #3 AN-81-5589. 

4. FDA Talk Paper, Feb. 2, 1982. 

5. Don 't Drink Your Milk, Oski & Bell, 1977. 

6. Los Angeles Times, April 16, 1976. 

7. Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research, Milwaukee, 
Wisconsin, 53201, Reprint #101. 

8. American Journal Clin. Nut. 32: January, 1979, pp.58. 



The scientific name for D3 is cholecalciferol. You wouldn't want to 
feed it to a guest unless you owed him a lot of money. 



Chapter IX 

UDDER PERFECTION 



"It's a bit late to introduce the idea now, but almost any 
mammal's milk would be easier to modify than cow's 
milk. Pig's milk is actually nearest to human milk. 
Camel milk and mare's milk have a better balance for 
humans. Sheep's milk is okay and so is goat's milk. 
Reindeer milk would be a bit fat; dog's milk a bit thin. 

Now, otter's milk could be just right. Perhaps we 
should look into it."... (M. Bateman, 1975) 

After delivery, the first milk of the human mother is 
called colostrum. It has a peculiar lemon yellow appear- 
ance. It is very high in antibodies so as to provide the 
newborn baby protection against infection. After the first 
few weeks, the milk turns to a more characteristic color 
for human milk, which is a bluish, thin liquid. This is 
often alarming to the mother expecting it to look like 
cow's milk. 

The colostrum is extremely high in antibodies, espe- 
cially IGA and lactoferrin, the primary function of which 
is to protect the baby from infection. It is the milk and the 
only milk that is perfect for the newborn baby. 

The actual secretion of milk from the breast does not 
usually start until the baby starts sucking on the breast. A 
remarkable hormonal system begins to work. With the 
sucking of the breast there is stimulation of the anterior 
pituitary gland in the brain which excretes the hormone 
prolactin, and the prolactin in turn stimulates the breast 
to produce milk. The importance of this hormone is 
illustrated by the fact that women with diseases of the 
pituitary gland may be unable to produce milk because 
of the under secretion of prolactin. 1 

A newborn baby has a very strong sucking reflex 
which should be taken advantage of by putting the baby 



132 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



on the breast immediately after birth. During assisted de- 
livery, if the obstetrician's finger accidentally enters the 
baby's mouth, the baby will immediately start sucking on 
the finger. 

Unfortunately, in hospital deliveries, the custom has 
been immediately to separate the mother from the baby, 
so the strong initial sucking reflex is not utilized to help 
the mother bring on her milk. This early sucking after de- 
livery and before removal of the placenta has profound 
hormonal effects and should by all means be taken ad- 
vantage of. Placental separation is facilitated by prolactin 
secretion. Prolactin is a built-in birth control system, for 
as long as the baby is sucking at the breast, prolactin is 
produced and the mother will not become pregnant.* It 
also helps water conservation and has a tranquilizing ef- 
fect on the mother. 

Another hormone, oxytocin, is important in the ac- 
tual secretion of the milk. Without proper oxytocin pro- 
duction from the posterior pituitary gland, there is an 
inability of the milk to be "let down." Essentially, the milk 
will become unavailable. 

Emotional factors in breast feeding are extremely 
important, and it is well known that a mother's milk can 
completely dry up if the mother becomes upset. The re- 
lease of epinephrine causes a constriction of blood ves- 
sels around the breast which keeps circulating oxytocin 
from reaching the target organ. Conversely, from a posi- 
tive point of view, a woman's milk will often flow if the 
mother sees her baby or even hears it cry. Even the 
thought of nursing can cause the "letting down" of milk. 
Modern medicine tends to interfere with all the natural 
processes necessary for the complicated hormonal inter- 
action leading to the letting down of milk and the actual 
secretion of milk. The Western practice of giving 
complementary bottle feedings is only to be deplored as 



* This doesn't always work, so don't say I didn't warn you. 



Udder Perfection 



133 



it decreases the child's appetite which leads to a 
diminished sucking reflex. A diminished sucking reflex 
causes a diminution in the prolactin secretion causing 
less production of milk, which may lead the mother to 
think she is inadequate. This in turn leads to anxiety, 
which leads to depression of oxytocin. The feeding of 
bottle milk between breast feeding may confuse the baby, 
as the sucking mechanism is entirely different between 
breast and artificial bottle feeding. 

The baby should be immediately put on the breast 
following delivery, intermittent bottle feeding should be 
discouraged, and mother and baby should be kept to- 
gether at all times to encourage feeding on demand. This 
will lead to a healthy baby, a quick recovery by the 
mother, and little need for the pediatrician. 

The baby formula companies and the National Dairy 
Association have discouraged breast feeding through 
subtle advertising and clever propaganda. The National 
Dairy As-association's animal pictures for children are a 
good example of anti-breast propaganda. Titled "We All 
Like Milk," it is a set of twelve color prints of animals. It is 
indeed attractive and appealing to children. But study of 
these photographs reveals some rather interesting points. 

First, it should be noted that animals do indeed like 
mother's milk, but in only one of the twelve photographs 
is there actually a scene of a baby nursing the mother. 
Some of the pictures show adult animals without any 
baby in the picture at all. The implication is that these 
adult animals drink milk, which of course, they do not. 
After all, the title of this children's picture series is "We 
All Like Milk," meaning the animals pictured. 

Out of the twelve photos, the only one showing a 
baby actually nursing at the mother’s breast is a picture 
of a very drab and filthy Polish ox, an essentially extinct 
animal. This leaves the impression that breast feeding 
also is extinct, and only a crummy animal like the Polish 
oxen would ever entertain such a yucky habit. The only 



134 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



reference to milk in the information provided on the back 
of the picture is the question, "What is the baby doing?" 
The answer is, by implication: He's engaging in an 
obscene, dirty, extinct habit practiced only by filthy 
animals. You think I'm a little paranoid? Send two bucks 
to the National Dairy Association, Chicago, Illinois 
60606, and ask for a copy of "We All Like Milk." Decide 
for yourself. 



Babies at the Breast 

(From the Spiney Anteater to the Blue Whale) 

The way the good Lord (or the Big E — evolution, if 
you are so inclined) has designed the feeding and care of 
the newborn in the mammalian world is truly fascinating 
and almost endless in variety. 

The kangaroo illustrates one of the most amazing ex- 
amples of the way nature provides for the young. The 
tiny (bean-sized), blind baby kangaroo, called a joey, is 
born while still a small fetus. This occurs at about four 
weeks gestation at which time the tiny little fetus actu- 
ally migrates up the mother's abdominal wall to her 
pouch where it becomes firmly attached to one of the 
nipples in the pouch. It is then termed a "mammary- 
fetus." This is truly one of nature's most amazing feats of 
gestation and nourishing. The fixation of the joey to the 
teat is so firm as to be almost inseparable. There is a 
ridge in the hard palate of the joey and an indentation on 
the tongue which facilitates the taking of the teat into the 
mouth and fusing it directly into the little embryo's 
throat which makes a true umbilical cord-like continuity 
of feeding and attachment which is as secure as a true 
umbilical cord. The milk of the kangaroo mother, inci- 
dentally, is quite pink in color, contains no lactose, and is 
very high in protein. 

The growth of the little embryo is phenomenally 
fast, as he grows from a weight of fifty milligrams when 
entering into the pouch to fifty grams in fifty days. 



Udder Perfection 



135 



This is not the end of the remarkable story of the 
kangaroo nursing phenomenon. In addition to the 
neonatal joey at the nipple just described, the preceding 
offspring, known as a "young at foot," spends most of his 
time out of the mother's pouch hopping around the 
neighborhood. However, if he becomes alarmed, he can 
return temporarily to the pouch and suckle from a differ- 
ent nipple than a joey, obtaining milk of an entirely different 
concentration appropriate for his particular age of develop- 
ment! The next fertilized egg is not passed down and out 
the exterior of the kangaroo mother as long as the joey is 
attached to her teat. The egg simply remains dormant 
until the joey comes loose from her teat, at which time 
the next ovum will begin to develop. 

Mammals are different in that they are the only ani- 
mals in which the post-embryonic young is solely de- 
pendent on food supplied by the mother's body. The 
German word for mammal is very apt, saugetier, which 
means sucking animal. The word "mammal" comes from 
the Latin meaning breast. 

In all but the higher animals this nursing process is 
purely instinctive. But with man and chimpanzees it has 
to be at least partly learned. Gunther reported that two 
chimpanzees born in a zoo to a non-wild mother were re- 
ported to have died of starvation from a failure of the 
mother to nurse. A non-wild female gorilla in a Califor- 
nia game reserve was successfully assisted in nursing by 
the use of films showing mothers nursing their young 
during her pregnancy; she nursed very successfully. 
Higher forms of mammalian animals have learned a defi- 
nite group behavior which protects the female during her 
pregnancy, during her labor, and during the nursing 
period. Elephants, dolphins, and baboons all have group 
behavior which illustrates this. 

Predators, animals that usually do not have to worry 
about being eaten by other animals, have young who are 
relatively immature and require rather long nursing. Spe- 



136 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



cies with well-hidden nests or burrows, such as rabbits 
and mice, also have a very long period of dependency of 
the babies on the mother for nursing. 

Animals which are preyed upon, and so need to be 
able to run almost immediately after birth, have very 
short gestation periods and are born nearly mature. Dol- 
phins, whales, seals, deer, etc., are born almost mature 
and either suckle standing on their feet, or in the case of 
dolphins and whales, while swimming with their mother. 
Man is unique among the mammals in that he has a very 
long gestation period, has a very immature newborn in- 
capable of doing anything for himself, and has a long pe- 
riod of breast feeding. The newborn human is one of the 
few mammals not able to even reach the breast without 
help from the mother. In most species the babies them- 
selves instinctively find the breast with the mother sim- 
ply lying in a passive role. As pointed out by Gunther, a 
little piglet at birth, apparently compelled by smell, 
scrambles around over its mother's legs until it reaches 
an unseen nipple entirely without the help of the mother. 

In general, the protein content of the milk varies 
with the rate of growth of the particular offspring. This is 
known as Bunge's Law. As an example, the horse, with two 
percent protein in the milk, takes sixty days to double the 
birth weight. The rabbit, with twelve percent protein in the 
milk, doubles the birth weight in only six days. In other 
words, the growth rate is directly proportional to the 
amount of protein in the breast milk. The protein 
concentration is also related to the frequency with which 
the mother feeds her offspring. Human breast milk, for 
instance, has one of the lowest protein concentrations of all 
mammals, and feeding is fairly frequent. By contrast, the 
protein milk of the rabbit is so high that she feeds her 
offspring only once in a twenty-four hour period. The 
mouse, with a very low solute milk, in contrast, spends 
about eighty percent of its time feeding its young. 

There is a great variability in the fat concentration of 
milk. Those animals requiring a lot of protection from ex- 



Udder Perfection 



137 



treme cold have a very high concentration of fat, whereas 
those who do not require this have a very low concentration 
of fat. For example, elephant milk contains only twenty 
percent fat, while the milk of the blue whale is fifty percent 
fat. Its newborn, which is twenty feet in length, lives in the 
cold water of the Arctic Sea and requires a great deal of 
protection from the cold temperatures. Those animals 
feeding on [omitted word]high-fat milk grow at a 
prodigious rate. The whale pup increases his weight from 
forty to four hundred pounds in the first month of life! 

The milk of one mammal is often entirely unfit for 
the young of another species. Some nutritionists feel very 
strongly about this in relation to cow's milk and human 
babies. Certainly, as we will see later in this chapter, 
cow's milk is a poor substitute for human breast milk. 

Some examples of this incompatibility of various 
mammalian milks will illustrate the need for giving seri- 
ous attention to those nutritionists who consider cow's 
milk incompatible with human infant digestion. The wal- 
rus, for example, produces a milk which contains very 
little lactose, and cow's milk, which is four percent lac- 
tose, causes severe diarrhea in the newborn walrus. Be- 
cause of this, if the baby walrus is reared in captivity 
without mother's milk, he is fed a formula of blended 
raw fish and whipping cream. Baby kangaroos brought 
up on cow's milk develop cataracts. They lack the en- 
zyme to metabolize lactose. 

The spiney anteater is another example of the won- 
drous ways that nature provides for feeding the young. 
The mother anteater lays one single egg which is lodged 
in a deep depression in the mother's abdominal wall 
similar to a kangaroo pouch, except much smaller. The 
skin of the mother closes completely over the egg. The 
tiny young, about one inch long, hatches from this egg 
and remains in this little pouch in which there are two 
teats from which to feed. There the baby spiney anteater 
stays until it becomes too spiney for comfort. 



138 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



The baby duck-billed platypus, which is an egg- 
laying mammal, comes into the world facing a seemingly 
impossible task. The newborn have to lick milk droplets 
from special hairs on the mother's belly. The New Guinea 
spiney anteater also has a precarious nursing system. 
Mother's milk simply pools in a crease in her belly and 
it's every anteater baby for himself. If the milk is spilled, 
then they do without.* 

The blue whale calf would appear to have a problem 
in that he cannot stay underwater very long. He has to 
suck under water to get his nourishment. This predica- 
ment has been solved by a system in which a very highly 
concentrated milk (50% fat), which is basically cream, is 
pumped very rapidly into the baby which can then surface 
for air. (Praise the god, "E," for his or her ingenuity!) 

The Hokkaido monkey of northern Japan has an in- 
teresting breast feeding pattern as reported in Jelliffee's 
excellent book on human breast milk. Jelliffee is, in turn, 
reporting from Helsing (1976). Monkeys are born in the 
spring and are suckled at the breast until autumn. At that 
time the mother leaves the young to fend for themselves, 
eating wild berries and other edible material they can 
find near their nest. The mother goes out and eats vora- 
ciously to prepare her physiological winter store of food. 
When winter comes, and the heavy snow covers the 
ground, consequently making it very difficult for the 
young to find food, the infants go back to the breast and 
feed again until spring. Although the mother has not lac- 
tated for a number of months in this unusual situation, 
lactation starts again, and the monkeys are breast-fed un- 
til spring approaches. 

Human milk is extremely complex and biologically 
different from any other milk. The milk of the goat, buf- 
falo, reindeer, yak, camel, and even the horse have been 
used for feeding human children. But cow's milk is by far 



* The baby numbat doesn't have it easy either, but you probably 
don't care about the numbat. 



Udder Perfection 



139 



most common around the world, being used as the pro 
tein base in most infant formulas. There are marked dif- 
ferences between the milk of the human and the milk of 
the cow, especially in the protein and fat content. 

Human milk will vary according to the age of the in- 
fant and can even vary at different times of the day, and 
at different seasons of the year as the human breast will 
adjust to the baby's needs. So it will always be impossible 
to construct a milk formula from cows (or any other 
animal) that can equal a mother's milk. A fixed concen- 
tration of the various ingredients in a formula is not the 
physiological way, as a baby's needs are constantly 
changing. The human breast is smart enough to figure 
out what changes are needed. Man is not. 

The Remarkable "White Blood" of Mother's 
Early Milk 

The human newborn has been called by scientists an 
"exterogestate fetus," (a fetus outside the womb) because 
the baby is born just as helpless as he was in the mother. 
Even baby puppies have the ability to root around and 
find the mother's nipple, but the human baby must be 
placed on it. The human breast serves as an umbilical 
cord for the newborn, still fetus-like, baby so that the 
mother can continue to provide life forces* essential to 
survival in a world loaded with menacing bacterial, viral, 
and fungal enemies. Her milk is an almost perfect shield 
against these predators. 

In many ways the mother's early milk, called colos- 
trum, acts as an antibiotic and is remarkably similar to 
blood in its content. In the Koran breast milk is referred to as 
"white blood." Murrilo and Goldman demonstrated in 1970 
that human milk is indeed a very live fluid with very active 
enzymes, hormones, and cells just as in regular blood. 



Not available in junk milk. 



140 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



Mother's milk, because of its composition of en- 
zymes, various blood cells, and antibodies, practically 
guarantees the infant against serious infection early in 
life, even in a poor environment where disease is ram- 
pant. The "bifidus factor" in human milk, for instance, fa- 
cilitates the growth in the intestine of lactobacillus 
bifidus which has a protective effect on the young intes- 
tine. It stops the growth of undesirable organisms, such 
as E. coli, which can be fatal. 

THIS TUST IN (July. 2006) : 

A GREAT DISCOVERY - 75 YEARS LATE 

You'll find this hard to believe; even as skeptical as I 
am about modern medicine, this one surprised me. 
Doctors at Brown University Medical School have 
discovered, and reported in the authoritative journal 
Pediatrics, (which is the latest word for baby doctors) that 
breast milk is superior to formula for premature babies. 
Can you believe it? After tinkering with "formulas" for 
75 years, everything from pasteurized cow milk to soy 
"milk," the "experts" have discovered that human breast 
milk is better for premature babies than man-made 
formulas! 

"Human milk is what these babies need," said Dr. 
Sheela Geraghty, who directs a breast-feeding program at 
the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center. This is 
a profound observation, one that has been recognized by 
most mothers with a grain of sense for a thousand years. 
They didn't know anything about brain development and 
modern IQ testing; they just knew that babies not fed 
breast milk weren't healthy and seemed a little on the 
dull side. 

Sheela added the old saw: "We're the only species on 
the planet that drinks another species' milk." As far as I 
know, no species of animal seeks out and drinks soy milk 
either. But there has been no objection to soy milk for 



Udder Perfection 



141 



babies from the majority of pediatricians. They just don't 
know that soy products, and soy "milk" in particular, are 
deadly to the health of everyone, especially developing 
children. And I would like to add, for DR. Geraghty's 
elucidation, that mammals other than homo sapiens do 
not have access to the milk of other mammals. Did you 
ever see a dog suckle a pig? If you have a dog, put a 
saucer of cool, raw cow's milk on the kitchen floor and 
see how fast it will disappear. 

"Ingredients in breast milk, particularly fatty 
acids, seem to help the brain develop properly," said 
study co-author Dr. Betty Vohr of Brown Medical 
School, reporting to Carla K. Johnson, Associated Press 
Writer. What a surprise. 

The AP also reported: (Emphasis added) "Even 
when the researchers took education and income into 
account, the breast milk babies scored higher on tests of 
mental development when they were 18 months old than 
the formula babies. The more breast milk the babies 
consumed, the better they did on the tests ." 

A study should be done to determine how many of 
today's pediatricians were bottle fed. What else could 
account for a 75-year lag in what mothers know and 
what baby doctors know? 

Ref: 

Pediatrics, July 2006 
AP News, 07/05/06 

The intestinal bacterial population in babies fed on 
breast milk is very different from that of babies fed on 
cow's milk. The breast-fed baby's intestine is colonized 
mainly with the harmless lactobacillus bifidus, men- 
tioned above, whereas the bottle-fed baby's intestine is 
populated primarily by gram negative bacteria which can 
cause serious illness. The following chart (Gotheforb) 
illustrates this critical difference. 



142 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



Type of Bacteria 


Breast-fed Infants 


Bottle-fed Infants 


Lactobacillus 

Bifidus 


Dominant 


Present in small 
numbers 


Enterococci 
(A disease-caus- 
ing organism) 


Present in small 
numbers 


Present in large 
numbers 


E. Coli (A danger- 
ous organism) 


Usually present 
in small numbers 


Constantly present 
in varying numbers, 
often dominant 


Gram Negative 
Anaerobes (very 
dangerous 
organisms) 


Mostly absent 


Constantly present, 
sometimes in large 
numbers 



You get the idea of how utterly ridiculous it is for 
the chemist to attempt to duplicate mother's milk with 
cow milk when you consider the incredible complexity of 
mother's milk, which includes not only the factors thus 
far mentioned, but an amazing array of immuno- 
globulins, lysozyme bifidus factor, and nutrient carrier 
proteins such as lactoferrin, and others, which literally 
starve out enemy bacteria in the baby's intestinal tract. 
The initial colostrum of milk shoots a large bolus of im- 
munoglobulin into the baby to give it super protection 
from infection. After a few days, as the needs become 
less, the concentration of immunoglobulin falls off. The 
immunoglobulin, IGA, absolutely essential for the baby 
to resist disease, is present in only small amounts in cow 
milk and is non-existent in "formula." The IGA in human 
milk is one-hundred times more concentrated than in 
cow's milk. The breast is actually a factory for this and 
other important protective immunoglobulins. 

The bifidus factor, first identified by Gyorgy, is ex- 
tremely important. It facilitates the growth of the lactoba- 
cillus bifidus which checks the growth of undesirable 



Udder Perfection 



143 



and dangerous organisms. Mother's milk contains forty 
times as much of this important factor as cow milk. 

An important enzyme, lysozyme, is a powerful anti- 
biotic. Mother's milk has a lysozyme concentration ap- 
proximately five thousand times greater than cow's milk. 
Some cultures, instinctively aware of the antibiotic effect 
of milk, have used it for such things as eye infections by 
using the mother's milk as eye drops.* 

The mother's milk produces interferon, which pro- 
tects the baby against herpes virus, an antistaphlococcus 
factor which protects the baby from the dreaded staph in- 
fection, anticholera factor, and also antibodies against ty- 
phus. "Formula" contains none of these. 

Another remarkable protective mechanism of the 
human breast is the diathelic phenomenon. The diathelic 
mechanism is a wonder of nature. The breast is stimu- 
lated by bacteria introduced at the teat by the baby. The 
bacteria travel up the teat into the breast tissue, causing 
an immediate reaction with the formation of antibodies, 
which can then be found back in the mother's milk 
within eight hours. If the mother is healthy, this is a prac- 
tically fool-proof system of protection for the baby. 

Klaus has stated it well, "The mother does not serve 
merely as a passive transmitter of immunity. Instead, the 
mammary gland is able to react to the microbes brought 
to it by the infant and respond with a fast production of 
specific antibody... The mammary gland is an exocrine 
reticuloendothelial gland which is 'lend leased' function- 
ally to the infant at a time when his own reticuloendothe- 
lial system is inadequate." 

The blood-like cellular composition of breast milk, 
mentioned above, is in itself another remarkable army 
designed to protect the newborn baby. The primary cell 
seen in the human milk is the macrophage. It dashes 
around squirting lysozyme at dangerous bacteria found 



It works. 



144 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



in the intestine. It fires lactoferrin at the enemy, destroy- 
ing yeast and other dangerous organisms by literally giv- 
ing them an iron deficiency, rendering them impotent. 
These large cells, the macrophages, move around freely. 
As well as firing their special chemicals at unwanted or- 
ganisms, they can also eat them. Another cell found in 
the blood and also found in the breast is called the 
lymphocyte. They produce inteferons and immunoglo- 
bulins to aid in the war against infection.* 

A host of diseases attack the newborn bottle-fed 
baby which affect the breast-fed baby little or none at all. 
Among these are epidemic infectious diarrhea of the 
newborn, acute necrotizing enterocolitis, otitis media, 
septicemia, and others. All of these diseases can be pre- 
vented, and usually cured, simply by the use of fresh, human 
breast milk. 

A typical example of the terrible havoc that can be 
unleashed in a person's life by improper feeding is the 
story of my patient, David Mishap (name fictitious — 
story real). 

David was put on a formula immediately after an 
uneventful birth. He was sent home on this formula and 
in two weeks was back in the hospital because of severe 
incompatibility with the formula. David was placed in a 
room adjoining the pediatric intensive care unit. He thus 
was exposed to some lethal bacteria and ended up 
getting both streptococcus and staphlococcus infections. 
He was sent home with the infections unrecognized and 
in a very short period of time the staph and strep 
infections had spread through the entire Mishap family. 

This unlucky child experienced nothing but chronic 
illness during his entire childhood. He became a misfit in 
his class and eventually turned to drugs. David dropped 
out of high school. He has not been able to hold a job for 



* Fantastic! How can the Mead Johnson Company, with their 
coconut oil formulas, compete with a system like that? 



Udder Perfection 



145 



any length of time. He is now twenty-one years old, is 5' 
8" tall, and weighs one hundred-twenty pounds. All of 
his problems are attributable to a very sickly childhood, 
secondary to his chronic infections, starting at age one 
month, and from which he never completely recovered. 
He is a semi-invalid, unable to support himself, and 
disappointed in life in general. All of this misery and 
expense probably could have been avoided if the child had been 
breast-fed from day one. 

There is a reason why breast-fed babies develop 
faster than bottle-fed ones. Dr. Michael Klagsbrun of 
Harvard has discovered a new growth factor in human 
colostrum. 2 None of the baby formulas contain this 
growth factor.* 

In Russia, a mother is given a four-month maternity 
leave to establish a breast-feeding routine. When she re- 
turns to work, the baby receives care at a nursery where 
the mother works. Every three hours she may take a 
nursing break.** 

Producers of baby formula based on pasteurized 
cow's milk are fond of showing charts that would indi- 
cate that human milk and their "formula" are "more or 
less" the same. They list on their beautiful full-color bro- 
chures for mothers the comparative fat content. The fat 
content for human milk is 4.5 grams per 100 cc's, and for 
formula, SMA for instance, it is 3.6 grams per 100 cc's — 
not a great difference. 

But, things are not always as they appear. Examina- 
tion of the fat of the two milks shows them to be entirely 
different as to quality and kind. The levels of the essen- 
tial polyunsaturated fatty acids are far greater in breast 
milk, especially linoleic acid which is seven to eight times 
greater. The fat used in commercial formula is coconut oil. 



* For the scientific reader: This factor is a mitogen that stimulates 
DNA synthesis. 

** I hate communism, but by God they are right on this one. 



Udder Perfection 



147 



a nutritious fat but not for babies. The vital chemical 
development of the brain is dependent on the proper 
concentrations of arachidonic and docadexaenoic fatty 
acids. These two important fatty acids are present in 
much lower concentrations in cow's milk formula. This 
may have tremendous import on the "brain pool" of our 
nation. We may, in fact, be draining our brain resources 
by dosing our babies with vegetable oils 3 . 

A proper supply of cholesterol is extremely 
important for the infant. Cholesterol is necessary for the 
development of the enzyme systems of the body and is 
absolutely essential for proper development of the 
central nervous system. Human milk has a much higher 
cholesterol level than cow's milk. Most of the baby 
formulas are even lower in cholesterol because of their 
vegetable base. 

Even baby formula, as bad as it is, may be safer than 
homogenized milk. Studies done in New Zealand re- 
vealed that babies raised on homogenized milk, com- 
pared to infant formula, were much more likely to 
become anemic due to blood in their stools. (Fifty-eight 
percent of the babies fed homogenized milk had blood in 
their stools.) 

The homogenized milk babies also had a signifi- 
cantly higher blood cholesterol level. At the end of five 
years these babies were tested again. They found that the 
homogenized milk babies still had a higher cholesterol 
level than the babies that were fed formula. 

As we mentioned, babies need a high cholesterol 
intake for proper brain development. But the cholesterol 
must be in a natural state, as in mother's milk, so that it 
can be properly metabolized by the central nervous 
system. You want it in the brain, not floating around in 
the blood. 

Triglycerides are the main constituents of milk fat. 
They have to be broken down in the presence of the en- 
zyme lipase for digestion. Pasteurized cow's milk formula 



148 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



contains no lipase, whereas human milk is rich in lipase. 
Consequently, human milk fat is very efficiently 
digested, and formula is not. 

The disease hypocalcemia of the newborn illustrates 
the extreme importance of breast milk feedings. The pal- 
mitic acid of human milk is of a different chemical char- 
acter from the palmitic acid of cow's milk. The 
pasteurized cow's milk palmitic acid is precipitated by 
calcium in the intestinal tract and is excreted as calcium 
palmitate soap. This causes a loss of fat, and even more 
important, a loss of calcium. A low calcium state and 
hypocalcemia with convulsions may result. 

It would appear, on analysis, that cow's milk is su- 
perior to human milk, as it contains three times as much 
protein. The opposite is true, as the protein in cow's milk 
is eighty-two percent casein. Casein causes a curd in the 
stomach that is tough and rubbery as opposed to the soft 
curd from human milk. Cow's milk, especially if pasteur- 
ized, is much less digestible in the delicate digestive sys- 
tem of the baby, and if overfeeding happens, an actual 
milk blockage called lactobezoar can occur. 4 * 

The differences between human milk and cow's milk 
formula go much deeper. Closer examination of the 
enzyme content of the two milks shows even more dras- 
tic differences of a highly technical nature. One of these 
differences illustrates the complexity of human milk and 
the futility of trying to duplicate it. 

The milk enzyme lactoferrin causes a binding of iron in 
the baby's intestinal tract which makes this iron unavailable 
to harmful bacteria in the newborn baby's intestine. This in 
a sense starves the microorganisms, makes them "anemic," 
and therefore ineffective as far as causing gastrointestinal 
problems to the baby. But the infant formulas based on 
pasteurized cow's milk are usually "iron enriched" and 



* A lactobezoar is like a baseball. You couldn't pass it and neither 
can your baby. 



Udder Perfection 



149 



contain no lactoferrin. The baby is in double jeopardy in that 
lactoferrin is not present, and iron is added to the milk 
which may enrich the unwanted bacteria. This may be a 
factor in so-called "milk intolerance" or "milk allergy." 

On the question of vitamins, there is no doubt that 
human milk is a perfect vitamin combination for the 
baby, and no additional vitamins need be given. Pasteur- 
ized cow milk preparations may appear superficially to 
contain more or less the right amounts of the various vi- 
tamins. But investigation has shown some of them. Vita- 
min B12 for instance, to be present in a different form 
than in human milk and therefore not absorbable. 

It would appear from the formula literature that 
breast milk and cow milk contain equal amounts of zinc, 
a very important nutrient to the young. But this also 
turns out to be more apparent than real, as the zinc from 
cow milk is not readily absorbed. Breast milk contains a 
zinc binding factor which favors proper absorption. 
There is a zinc deficiency disease known as acrodermati- 
tis enteropathica. Acrodermatitis rarely occurs in the 
breast-fed infant. 

Even the rate of breathing is different in babies fed 
on breast milk as compared to bottle feeding, and this is 
true even if the breast milk itself is fed out of a bottle. So the 
human teat also serves an important purpose. 5 

The message is clear: Breast is best. Mother’s milk is 
more nutritious, anti-infective, contraceptive, and vastly 
more economical. The only milk that a young baby 
should receive is that which has been run, unpasteurized, 
through the mother. 

The Baby Formula Diseases 

Cow's milk formula feeding has become the norm in 
all western countries. The majority of people, both medi- 
cal and non-medical, seem to think there is little differ- 
ence in the eventual outcome, whether the child is 



150 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



breast-fed or fed pasteurized cow milk formula. The pos- 
sible long term effects of artificial feeding had not been 
properly investigated or brought into focus until Jelliffee 
& Jelliffee' brought all the research together in their book 
Human Milk in the Modern World . 6 

Many studies of Western society have shown there is 
a definite tendency toward obesity among bottle-fed ba- 
bies. In one study in Laborador, Canada, for instance, 
seventy percent of children under one year of age were 
obese. In the poorer countries, formula is almost certain 
to be diluted to a minimal level of nourishment because 
of the cost, leading to semi-starvation. In the more 
affluent countries, the opposite happens wherein the 
mother will make the formula more concentrated, 
thinking she is giving her baby extra nourishment. This 
leads to caloric overdose and, because of the high 
concentration of the formula, often leads to thirst, which 
in turn leads to the baby demanding more formula, 
creating a vicious cycle leading to obesity. The healthy 
human breast, on the other hand, regulates the baby's 
need to an incredible degree. 

Tracey and others have demonstrated that the obese, 
bottle-fed baby is more subject to illness than the breast- 
fed baby. Even after bottle feeding has stopped in early 
childhood, the child denied the breast is more subject to 
illness. Respiratory infections and skin diseases are far 
more common in these bottle-fed, obese children. 

The problem of bottle-feeding obesity is extremely 
serious, as many studies have now shown that the 
malady will continue into adult life, leading to perma- 
nent obesity with all of its concurrent physical risks . 
Eid demonstrated that eighty percent of obese children 
are also obese in adult life. It is well known that obesity 
is one of our major health problems. It may well stem 
from cow's milk bottle feeding from birth. Remember, I 
wrote this over 20 years ago (1984). Now everybody is 
talking about childhood obesity. 



Udder Perfection 



151 



Iron deficiency anemia is far less common in breast- 
fed babies. The iron content of breast milk, and cow's 
milk as well, is low. However, the iron needs of the 
bottle-fed infant are higher, probably due to intestinal 
micro hemorrhages, which can deplete the baby's iron 
stores. Iron supplementation is always needed in the 
bottle-fed baby whereas it is not needed in the breast-fed 
baby. And remember, formula contains no lactoferrin, 
essential for iron absorption. 

Cow's milk has a different electrolyte (minerals) and 
protein content than human milk, and babies fed on 
modified cow's milk formula are reported to have a 
rather high level of urea. Urea is a breakdown product of 
protein, and in abnormal concentrations can put a heavy 
load on the baby's immature kidneys. Although it has not 
been proven, this may be a factor in adult hypertension 
and kidney disease. The excess sodium can cause the 
same kidney problems and possible brain damage in 
addition. 

Fatty acids and calcium from cow milk combine to 
form insoluable soaps, making the calcium unavailable 
for absorption. This is the major reason why the stools of 
breast-fed babies are entirely different in appearance and 
odor from those of bottle-fed babies. This condition can 
be so serious that convulsion and death occur because of 
low blood calcium level. These low-calcium, high-phos- 
phate, bottle-fed babies with "neonatal hypocalcemia" 
can also die of heart failure. This deadly syndrome sim- 
ply does not occur in breast-fed babies. 

The premature baby is almost assured of bad health, 
at least during childhood, if fed cow's milk baby formula. 
The amino acids in cow's milk are entirely different from 
that of human milk and the premature infant simply can- 
not metabolize it properly. The important amino acid, 
cystine, is of very low concentration in cow's milk. It is 
absolutely essential for the survival and good health of 
premature babies. Premature babies do not have the en- 



152 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



zyme cystothianase in their livers and consequently can- 
not change other amino acids to the essential cystine. 
Mature infants usually have this enzyme and can convert 
the amino acids in cow's milk to cystine. The long term 
effects of feeding these highly vulnerable premature chil- 
dren cow's milk formula is devastating and permanently 
damaging. Learning disabilities caused by neurological 
damage from the ingestion of the high concentration of 
unassimilatable amino acids can lead to lifelong intellec- 
tual crippling. Certainly our brain resources, our "intel- 
lectual pool," is the most valuable commodity of our 
nation, and it is entirely possible that we are having a 
"brain drain" from this undesirable approach to infant 
feeding. As Dr. Royal S. Copeland once said, "The meas- 
ure of a civilization is the fate of its babies." 

Dyslexia, learning disabilities, and all the array of 
central nervous system problems we see today in chil- 
dren may be related to the abandonment of the breast. 
Frances Broad did a study in New Zealand in 1971 on the 
devastating effect that bottle feeding has on speech and 
learning. 7 It should have shocked American pediatricians 
into a campaign against bottle feeding.* Broad hypoth- 
esized that factors influencing the development of the 
sucking response could possibly have an effect on im- 
proving the muscles required for speech, including the 
tongue. Her findings were of enormous importance to 
parents, teachers, pediatricians, and speech therapists. 

Eighty-six percent of breast-fed boys had clear speech 
by the age of six, whereas only forty-eight percent of 
bottle-fed boys had clear speech at six years of age.** 
Only seven weeks of breast feeding was necessary to 
avoid the speech handicap. 



* But who reads the New Zealand Medical Journal? 

** Girls are not as affected speech-wise by bottle feeding. 



Udder Perfection 



153 



Broad's major findings: 

1. There is a distinct relationship between breast 
feeding and clear speech in the male child. 

2. Breast feeding is associated with improved tonal 
quality in both sexes, but with a more marked 
improvement in the case of the male child. 

3. Improved speech is associated with improved reading 
ability.* 

The disease acrodermatitis enteropathica is a good 
example of how things are not always as they appear. 

W.S. Gilbert said in H.M.S. Pinafore: 

"Things are seldom what they seem. Skim milk 

masquerades as cream." 

Promoters of cow milk formula are quick to point 
out the similarity between cow milk and human milk 
rather than the differences. The zinc level of cow's milk 
and human milk is virtually the same, three to five milli- 
grams per 100 cc's. But the assimilation of the zinc is an 
entirely different matter. The disease acrodermatitis 
enteropathica, which is fatal if not treated, appears to be 
a zinc deficiency caused by the zinc in cow's milk simply 
not being assimilated into the baby's metabolism. It is 
treated by administering zinc supplements or by simply 
feeding the babies mother's milk. As the cow's milk for- 
mula manufacturers continue to change their mixtures in 
an attempt to emulate mother's milk, they end up solving 
one problem and creating others. These attempts at "hu- 
manizing" cow's milk have led to Vitamin B6 deficiency, 
linoleic acid deficiency, and hemolytic anemia due to Vi- 
tamin E deficiency.** 

The udder folly of trying to duplicate mother's milk 
with a cow milk formula is illustrated by the comment 



* Now do you think it's important to breast feed your baby? If he 
can't read, he can't learn. 

** Vitamin E was formerly called "a vitamin looking for a disease" — 
it found it. 



154 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



from the Department of Health and Social Security of the 
United Kingdom in 1974, "Only by demineralization and 
addition of electrolytes can a food based on cow's milk be 
prepared which has the sodium concentration near to 
that of breast milk. But during this demineralization 
process all minerals are removed including known ele- 
ments and perhaps others as yet unknown. When elements 
are replaced in the form of soluble inorganic salts, there is 
no certainty that they are then present in physiologically ideal 
form." (Emphasis added.) In less scientific language: The 
minerals go in one end and come out the other. 

There are many factors which led investigators to 
suspect that diseases in adults may very well have their 
etiology in formula feeding in infancy. Autopsies have 
shown that arteriosclerosis does indeed appear in bottle- 
fed children. Breast-fed babies simply do not have this 
bad beginning. The etiology of coronary artery disease, 
accelerated by the use of junk foods, probably does start 
with junk milk in childhood. 

Contrary to propaganda put out by the American 
Medical Association, the American Heart Association, 
and other misguided groups, a high-cholesterol diet is 
probably protective against hardening of the arteries 
rather than causative. Human milk has a much higher 
level of cholesterol than cow milk as well as other factors, 
including more utilizable zinc, which helps to protect the 
baby against hardening of the arteries. There are, no 
doubt, many other factors involved, such as the use of 
chlorinated water in childhood, but "formula" appears to 
be a definite factor in early atherosclerosis. 

Allergy to cow milk is a commonly recognized prob- 
lem which usually starts in babyhood with the institution 
of cow milk formula. Multiple sclerosis and ulcerative 
colitis have also been associated with the use of cow 
milk. There is some evidence that unprocessed, that is 
raw unhomogenized milk, is much less likely to cause 
these syndromes. 



Udder Perfection 



155 



One of the great enigmas of modern medicine is the 
"sudden infant death syndrome." It has become a leading 
cause of death in babies between one month and one year 
old in the modern world. Paradoxically, this syndrome 
appears to be almost unknown in many primitive 
societies. A highly significant study done by Tonkin in 
New Zealand reveals that of eighty-six babies dying with 
SID, only three were breast-fed. It would be interesting to 
know if the sudden infant death syndrome is increasing 
in those areas of the world previously untouched by cow 
milk formula. 

Although a study of the sudden infant death syn- 
drome has not proven a true bacteremia, that is, infection 
of the blood, it is known that there is a marked "immu- 
nity gap" when the child is fed cow milk rather than hu- 
man milk. The breast-fed baby has built-in immunity 
from the mother's milk, whereas the newborn fed on 
cow's milk only has temporary immunity brought in by 
the mother's blood at birth. At about the time this tempo- 
rary immunity wears off at three months of age, the inci- 
dence of sudden death goes up. If these babies were 
breast fed, these deaths simply would not occur. The 
cause of the sudden infant death syndrome is unclear, 
but breast feeding will avoid most cases.* 

In advanced societies there are significant differ- 
ences in the incidence of illness between breast-fed and 
bottle-fed infants. It amounts to many millions of dollars 
of income and energy lost every year. A study done by 
Wako of Japan revealed a 31.4% respiratory illness rate in 
bottle-fed babies as compared to only 16% for breast-fed. 
Cunningham, in his study, found respiratory infections, 
otitis media, vomiting, and diarrhea to be three times as 
common in bottle-fed babies in New York. 



We covered this in more detail in Chapter III. 



156 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



Dr. Randolph Paine of the University of Iowa stud- 
ied 106 babies, forty of whom were breast-fed and the re- 
maining 66 bottle-fed. He compared the method of feeding 
with the number of visits due to illness to the doctor's 
office. The breast-fed infants had an average of 1.6 visits 
to the doctor. The bottle-fed infants averaged 2.8. 

A study done in 1981 at Massachusetts General 
Hospital reported on the incidence of viral infection of 
newborn babies which, the author suggested could be 
avoided by "later delivery." What the author was saying 
was that the incidence of this disease was more common 
in premature babies. The significant omission in this 
report was that no mention was made as to whether 
these babies were breast-fed or bottle-fed. Undoubtedly, 
the whole syndrome could be avoided if all babies were 
breast-fed. This article reflects the total lack of knowledge 
and interest in breast feeding and its curative properties 
by most modern-day physicians. In fact a study in 
California revealed that over half of the pediatricians and 
obstetricians surveyed had never seen a baby breast fed 
either in their childhood or during their medical 
training. 8 An editorial in the Lancet, a prestigious British 
medical journal, came down hard on the pediatricians, 
"...having in effect abdicated their responsibilities in this 
field (they) must accept responsibility for the present 
state of affairs." That got the attention of the pediatricians 
- now they act like they invented breast milk. 

The psychological factors in breast feeding as com- 
pared to bottle feeding are difficult to measure. Many in- 
vestigators feel there is a connection between the 
decrease in the ability to maintain loyalties over a period 
of time and the progressive destructive behavior seen in 
modern society as breast feeding has declined and bottle 
feeding has increased. One cannot help but notice the ob- 
session that Western men have with the appearance of 
women's breasts. Is this related to the decline in breast 
feeding in Western civilization? 



Udder Perfection 



1 57 



Nizel of Tufts University reported that decayed teeth 
were four times more common in pasteurized milk-fed 
babies as opposed to breast-fed babies.* 

It is obvious to even a casual observer that the brace 
business has become a major industry in this country in 
the past fifty years. No one seems to question why a 
large percentage of children need braces, whereas fifty 
years ago they did not. Some would respond that the 
technology simply was not there, but the facts would be- 
lie this conclusion. Adults now fifty years or more of age 
certainly do not appear to have more crooked teeth than 
younger people. They, in fact, seem to have less. This se- 
vere malarrangement of teeth, due to abnormal develop- 
ment of the mouth and nasopharyngeal cavity, is due to 
the change from breast feeding to bottle feeding. The me- 
chanics of breast feeding as compared to bottle feeding 
are entirely different and this affects the development of 
the entire oropharynx. It is probable that ninety-eight 
percent of the orthodontists would be put out of business 
if there was a general return to breast feeding. Dr. Weston 
Price proved that processed food, such as pasteurized 
milk, causes poor development of the facial bones which 
leads to a mouth too small for all the teeth. 

The economic losses from bottle feeding as opposed 
to breast feeding are truly staggering. Jelliffee & Jelliffee 
point out just one tiny aspect of this problem: 

"...In the USA, a bottle-fed baby uses about one 
hundred fifty tins of ready-to-feed formula at six 
months. With an estimated 3,000,000 births per annum 
in the USA, this implies not only the loss of large 
quantities of milk, but at the same time, the use of 
450,000,000 usually non-recyclable tins, or about 70,000 
tons of tinplate each year." 

To this could be added the cost of tons of bottles, 
plastic or glass, nipples, sterilizing equipment, possibly 



See also Steinman rat studies on page 41. 



158 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



increased crime, skyrocketing costs of orthodontics, and 
doctor and hospital bills amounting to billions of dollars. 

One of the very slick promotion pieces from the Na- 
tional Dairy Council titled Throughout the Life Cycle 
makes some interesting comments concerning calcium in 
cow's milk and calcium in breast milk. One gets the 
impression from this booklet that there is some question 
as to whether the baby gets enough calcium through the 
breast. But the Dairy Council goes on to assure the 
reader, "Since the smaller quantity of calcium in human 
milk is balanced by increased absorption, breast feeding 
fulfills calcium needs." 

This "damnation through faint praise" is entirely 
misleading. What the article does not say is that the only 
cases of neonatal hypocalcemia, low calcium in the 
blood, are found in pasteurized, cow's milk-fed and 

formula-fed infants. 

The brochure goes on to state, "Throughout adoles- 
cence and early adult life an adequate intake of calcium 
enriched foods such as milk and milk products is neces- 
sary for complete mineralization of the skeleton." This is 
an exaggeration of the importance of milk and milk 
products. One hundred grams of milk, for instance, only 
supplies ten percent of the recommended daily allowance 
of calcium for adults. Calcium is readily available in a 
diet consisting of fresh fruits and vegetables which are 
not overcooked. I do not mean to imply that milk and 
dairy products cannot or should not supply a portion of 
calcium needs. But the question still must be answered as 
to how much of the calcium in a pasteurized homog- 
enized product is really available? Are we seeing a vast 
number of patients with osteoporosis (thinning bones) 
because these so-called high-calcium dairy products do 
not have a calcium that is assimilatable? There are areas 
of the world where milk and dairy products in general 
are not in great use, and yet these people have no more 
osteoporosis or other diseases of low calcium than we do. 



Udder Perfection 



159 



Many have less. The Dairy Council booklet states that the 
calcium phosphorus ratio of 1.2 to 1.0 in pasteurized 
cow's milk is conducive to skeletal growth and favors 
calcium absorption into the bone. This is untrue. The 
calcium phosphorus ratio in cow's milk is not conducive 
to absorption. The excess of phosphate in pasteurized 
cow's milk actually diminishes the serum calcium level. 
More importantly, the enzymes necessary for the proper 
absorption of calcium have been destroyed by the 
pasteurization process. The booklet states, "Milk or other 
dairy products become dietary essentials if the calcium 
needs of the various age groups are to be met." Actually, 
the calcium needs of the individual can be met without 
ever drinking milk or eating milk products. But if you 
want to be assured of getting adequate calcium in your 
diet, drink a pint of raw milk every day. 

The Great American Allergy Problem 

Jelliffee has pointed out that a fully bottle-fed baby 
of three months of age consumes his own body weight in 
pasteurized cow's milk every week. Six grams per kg of 
cow's milk that the baby drinks is equivalent to seven 
quarts of milk per day for an adult! If the baby is allergic 
to components of pasteurized cow's milk, he is obviously 
getting a huge dose of the allergic components on a daily 
basis. 

The incidence of allergy among breast-feeding ba- 
bies is practically zero. It should be pointed out that the 
bottle milk we are talking about is pasteurized milk and 
pasteurized milk formula. The incidence of allergy to 
cow milk is greatly reduced when the milk is 
unprocessed, that is, raw and unhomogenized. But, as we 
have pointed out many times, there is no substitute for 
mother's milk. An example of the importance of mother's 
milk in avoiding allergy are the statistics from Kampala, 
Uganda. This very busy urban hospital with one hundred 



160 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



pediatric beds, reported absolutely no food allergy in the 
one year of the study. The babies are breast fed in 
Kampala. 

As long ago as 1934, 70 years ago, it was known that 
the incidence of allergic disease was seven times as 
common in bottle-fed babies. 9 The array of diseases asso- 
ciated with pasteurized cow's milk is truly staggering: 
otitis media, bronchial pneumonia, failure to thrive, 
diarrhea, anemia, gastroenteropathy, vomiting, malab- 
sorption syndrome, atopic dermatitis, rhinitis, colitis, 
colic, anaphylactic shock, sudden infant death syndrome, 
and intussusception (a telescoping of the bowel). Various 
difficulties of adulthood including multiple sclerosis, 
coronary artery disease (heart attack), and ulcerative coli- 
tis, have been associated with cow's milk allergy in early 
childhood. 

Immunoglobulin A (IGA) is not present in the intes- 
tinal canal of the newborn for six weeks. The IGA is ex- 
tremely important, in fact essential, for avoidance of 
allergy in babies. But the mother's breast milk contains 
adequate amounts of IGA to protect the baby. Cow's milk 
does not have the all-important IGA, so as stated un- 
equivocally by Jelliffee, "Feeding is the single most im- 
portant approach to prophylaxis of allergy in infancy." 
Jelliffee goes on to recommend that absolutely no other 
foods be given to the infant for the first six months of 
life, that is nothing but breast milk to avoid these allergic 
problems. Jelliffee's opinion is reinforced by the work of 
Mellon, who proved, by using breast feeding for allergic 
infants, that he could reduce the incidence of allergy 
from forty-one percent to a mere seven percent. 

It is worth emphasizing again that all of these stud- 
ies to which we have referred involve the use of pasteur- 
ized milk, not unprocessed raw milk. The advantage of 
raw milk as a substitute for breast milk, when necessary, 
is discussed in another chapter. 

Cavity formation in young babies is directly related 
to the type of milk the baby has been fed. Babies who are 



Udder Perfection 



161 



breast fed have considerably fewer cavities than babies 
who are bottle fed. Even if the child is breast fed for only 
three months, a study by Tank & Storvick revealed that 
these children had fifty percent fewer cavities than 
children fed on cow's milk. I told you more about this in 
Chapter III. 

Severe deficiencies often occur in undeveloped 
countries where pasteurized cow milk formula has been 
foisted on the ignorant public. Scurvy (Vitamin C defi- 
ciency) and Vitamin A deficiency are the two most com- 
mon. The problem goes beyond the home in that the 
same ignorance extends to the hospitals, the doctors, and 
the nursing personnel. One study in a third-world coun- 
try showed that eighty-seven percent of the children admit- 
ted to the hospital were malnourished. The problem 
worldwide is mind-boggling. Estimates are that there is a 
total of 98.4 million children between birth and four 
years of age suffering from some form of malnutrition. 
Much of this malnutrition would be avoided by expelling 
Nestle, Borden, SMA, and other formula manufacturers 
from the various countries involved. 

A group called Infant Formula Action is organizing a 
boycott of Nestle products in developing countries, de- 
manding that this company stop the free distribution of 
formula in hospitals and that clinics stop the use of 
"Mother Craft Nurses" who promote formula use.* 

Little understood but of great importance in control- 
ling world population is "lactation amenorrhea." The 
secretion of prolactin hormone acts as a natural contra- 
ceptive, important in spacing children in poor countries. 
This natural spacing puts the children from one and one- 
half to two years apart. This contraceptive effect of breast 
feeding has been common knowledge in primitive tribes 
for hundreds and perhaps thousands of years, but it has 
not been accepted in modern society until very recently. 



Nestle agreed in 1984 to stop these practices. 



162 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



The Eskimo women of 40 years ago breast fed their 
babies for as long as three years and conception only 
occurred two to four months after the cessation of breast 
feeding. The increase in birth rate in the Eskimo can be 
correlated with the proximity of their living quarters to 
the nearest trading center selling tinned milk. It is 
probably no exaggeration to say that a great deal of the 
world's present population problems can be laid on the 
shoulders of the commercial infant formula companies. 

The incredible impact on the economy of a poor na- 
tion caused by the abandonment of breast feeding is sel- 
dom realized. Byrd pointed out that in Kenya there was 
an approximate eleven and one-half million dollar an- 
nual loss in breast milk which is two-thirds of the National 
Health budget or one-fifth of the annual economic aid given to 
that country !* Multiply this by all of the disadvantaged 
countries of the world, and the cost is truly staggering. 
These cost figures do not even take into consideration the 
tremendous lack of brain development, chronic illness 
and associated medical costs, giving these nations a bur- 
den from which they can probably never recover. Or, at 
least, not until they recognize that commercial formula 
companies are one of their greatest enemies and not the 
great benefactors they pretend to be in their advertising. 

It should be pointed out that these health problems 
of children and the birth rate situation also apply to the 
disadvantaged people in the more advanced countries. 
Although to a lesser degree, protein malnutrition and 
chronic disease caused by formula can be found in Harlem 
and Birmingham just as it can in Ghana and Bangledesh. 

Baby Formula— Junk Food 

The search for the perfect artificial mother's milk 
goes on, and, of course, it will never be found. The con- 
fusing array of various "milks" available, each claiming 



* The loss is computed by determining how much formula had to be 
bought to replace breast milk not utilized for infant feeding. 



Udder Perfection 



163 



to be superior, is truly remarkable. In 1974, a study by 
Ford of the thirty-two formula preparations in Europe 
showed that the difference in composition of these 
various milks was vast. Many of them were a dangerous 
mixture of animal and vegetable fats. In the United 
States this trend toward polyunsaturated fats is perhaps 
even more extreme. Coconut oil is commonly used. I can 
assure you that the human breast does not contain any 
coconut oil, and, although good for adult nutrition, it 
certainly is not designed for the delicate intestines of the 
newborn child. In restrained understatement Jelliffee 
says, "The nutritional effect of these changes are quite 
uncertain." What do the following have in common: 
Similac baby formula. Dove soap, Enfamil baby formula. 
Lifebuoy soap, and Meadow Fresh imitation milk?* 

Recent investigations in Sweden have shown that 
the protein content of human milk is lower than we once 
thought. Which means, in all probability, that we have 
been overloading babies with excess protein in formula 
which contributes to kidney disease, allergies, high blood 
pressure, and a host of other diseases? 

It is characteristic of man that he periodically has to 
rediscover the wheel. There is today, in industrialized 
countries, a quiet revolution going on as people go to 
natural methods in medicine and rediscover the breast. 
Unfortunately, the third-world countries are now facing 
the same onslaught by commercial baby formula people 
that the Western world faced fifty years ago. The formula 
companies are looking for new markets as they face a 
shrinking market in a more sophisticated Western world. 
This tragic exploitation of these ignorant people and the 
consequent abandonment of a great national resource, 
human milk, must be stopped. 

Estrada, commenting in an editorial in the journal of 
the Philippine Medical Association, said, "Advertise- 
ments of cow's milk preparations bombard the popula- 



You guessed it. Vegetable oil. 



164 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



tion, especially the nursing mothers, from all quarters; 
billboards, pictures, magazines, radio, and television, all 
show in glowing color the sturdiness and attractiveness 
of babies (and their mothers) if they use this or that prod- 
uct. This is such that it had been found, particularly in 
developing countries, that artificial feeding becomes a 
manifestation of status, used by those who belong to a 
higher social level, and breast feeding is only for... the 
lower strata of the population. " 

The first experiment in medical manslaughter with 
artificial milk as the weapon was probably the one in 
1912 when the Germans introduced bottle feeding to the 
people of East Africa. The results were of course disas- 
trous with a drastic increase in "intestinal catarrh" and in- 
fant death. 

In Costa Rica over forty percent of infants are weaned 
from the breast by age of four months. This is in a country 
with extremely limited means of obtaining wealth with 
no petroleum and an economy that is pretty much at the 
mercy of world prices for agricultural products. In a 
small village in Mexico as high as ninety percent of 
babies were breast-fed until three months of age, but in 
1971 breast feeding had plummeted to about five percent. 
Taken to the extreme, at the University of Western 
Nigeria at Ibadan, the babies are one hundred percent 
bottle-fed from birth. 

The revolt against artificial feeding is due to a gen- 
eral reaction against modern technology and to an aware- 
ness that anti-allergic, emotional and other factors are 
very much involved in breast feeding. There is a realiza- 
tion that doctors and other health professionals really 
don't know what they are talking about when it comes to 
infant feeding. 

The promotion of junk milk formulas throughout the 
world is done with tremendous advertising budgets. The 
advertising promotion campaigns are pervasive, insidi- 
ously anti-breast milk, extremely effective — and devas- 



Udder Perfection 



165 



tating to the health of the population of the poor coun- 
tries. The food companies, mostly American, hand out 
many free samples, weight charts, and measuring tapes, 
calendars, and other paraphernalia with the company 
name usually on it. Company "milk nurses" or "mother 
craft nurses" have been utilized to promote formula. 
They work as trained nurses and do nursing assignments, 
but they are also the active sales representatives and 
promoters for the company by which they are employed. 

In the poorer countries, these campaigns cause a 
drastic dislocation of the economy in that the natives, 
perceiving this as the epitome of modern life, abandon 
breast feeding to purchase the vastly inferior baby formula. 
This takes a large percentage of their monthly income, not to 
mention the tremendous increase in diseases of the children 
who become a burden on the already impoverished 
government. These campaigns are very similar to the 
ones used by the junk food industry to promote soda pop 
around the world and in the long run will probably be 
even more medically and economically disastrous. 

This type of promotion, of course, goes on in our own 
country to even a greater extent, and these junk formulas 
are promoted among the medical profession incessantly. The 
companies take advantage of the fact that most doctors and 
nurses are largely ignorant on nutrition, so in a sense, the 
formula companies are playing on ignorance just as they do 
in developing countries. The American Medical Association 
and its journals, such as the pediatric journals, are almost 
entirely supported from funds contributed by the drug 
industry and the food industry. Without the advertising 
from the drug industry and the food industry, the American 
Medical Association and all its journals would simply 
collapse. Even if the doctors and nurses were more 
sophisticated on nutrition, how can they bite the hand that 
feeds them? [I am happy to report that now (2007) this is 
no longer true in the U.S. Doctors, even pediatricians, 
have seen the light on breast milk.] 




The Babies of the World are Revolting Against 
Artificial Feeding 



Udder Perfection 



167 



Economic Rape by Bottle Feeding 

It is truly amazing that most of the world has turned 
away from breast milk in the face of actual starvation to 
take to nutritionally inferior bottle feeding. Jelliffee 
points out that perhaps we should not be really surprised 
that human milk has not been considered as a national 
resource in food by the bureaucratic planners, as it is not 
grown agriculturally or purchased in a can. In 1968 a 
United Nations Publication titled International Action to 
Avert the Impending Protein Crisis made no mention what- 
soever of human milk . Yet to supply cow's milk formula 
for all women with babies in India, for instance, would 
require the development of an additional herd of four- 
teen million milk-producing cows. This is clearly impos- 
sible and unnecessary when mother's milk is readily 
available even in malnourished women. 

The cost of abandoning breast milk feeding, espe- 
cially in underdeveloped countries, has been truly stag- 
gering. Not only do all the tons of breast milk have to be 
replaced with inferior cow's milk formula at great cost, 
but the incredible amount of disease to infants has to be 
treated with expensive medications, hospital facilities, 
doctors, nurses, and other personnel. Also the problem of 
birth control in these countries is made even worse by 
the simple fact that the loss of lactation means the loss of 
the natural contraceptive hormone which prevents preg- 
nancy during active lactation. In one California city, it 
cost approximately three times as much to feed a baby 
ready-to-feed formula rather than spend the money for 
food for the mother which is converted to breast milk. 10 
This difference in cost would be extremely important to 
families at the poverty level. 

As an aside, it should be mentioned that along with 
the bad attitude toward breast feeding in the United 
States, can be added that doctors for years have given 
prospective mothers very bad advice concerning weight 
gain. Doctors have insisted for years that women care- 



168 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



fully restrict their weight during pregnancy under the 
misconception that this would prevent hypertension and 
eclampsia (convulsions). Whichelow in 1975 showed that 
women who drastically reduced their calorie intake had 
immediate reduction in milk supply. Failure of lactation 
may be due, in part, to this bad medical advice. 

The price of dried skim milk, the basic ingredient of 
most baby formulas, has quadrupled in the last few 
years. Although the price of food to the mother has of 
course risen, there has been no rise in cost of labor, 
packaging, or delivery in the maternal "milk factory." So 
the cost of breast feeding still remains about one-third 
the cost of formula. 

One of the great scandals in international business 
today is the incredible "rip-off" of poor people around the 
world buying baby formula. The cost per day at six 
months of age for feeding a baby an adequate amount of 
baby formula would require sixty-three percent of the av- 
erage Egyptian's wages. A ministry clerk in Malawi spends 
eighty percent of his salary to buy enough formula to 
feed his baby, whereas it is available for practically nothing 
right at the mother's breast. This is a truly pathetic swindle 
of innocent people. 

The evidence from sound research indicating the su- 
periority of breast milk over prepared cow milk formula 
is undisputed. In one study by Wennen in 1969 in The 
Hague, Netherlands, even babies from upper levels of the 
economy experienced an infant mortality of seventy per 
thousand, a five-hundred percent increase over the mor- 
tality in the lower income breast-fed babies. In Derby, 
England, according to the report of Harworth in 1905, in- 
fant mortality was seven percent among breast-fed babies 
and almost twenty percent among totally bottle-fed ba- 
bies. These statistics have, of course, been improved with 
the recognition of bacteriological problems inherent in 
the use of cow's milk. The mortality rate has gone down 
precipitously with the advent of more sanitary methods. 



Udder Perfection 



169 



But the morbidity (the percentage of ill babies for one rea- 
son or another) has probably not decreased at all as we 
will see later. 

With the advent of more canning methods, the in- 
vention of vulcanized rubber which made the artificial 
nipple more practical, and the introduction of condensed 
milk by the Nestle Company in 1866, some of the previ- 
ous conditions due to bad hygiene were definitely im- 
proved. Because of these modern advances at the turn of 
the century and the fascination with science both in Eu- 
rope and the United States, welfare agencies (and doc- 
tors) tended to promote bottle feeding as scientific and 
desirable. With "Modern Science" there was a rush away 
from "the most perfectly made solution in the world." Bil- 
lions of dollars in this rich resource were thrown away, 
and a tremendous amount of sickness and death was 
caused by this great "scientific advance." 

This retreat from reason and knowledge was described 
by William Woody, "At birth, processes are at work which 
are designed to enable a baby to draw its sustenance from 
its mother's breast; both mother and baby are physiologi- 
cally prepared for this transformation. The stages of 
maternal lactation, the behavior of the nursling, and the 
nature of the required maternal responses to the baby's 
demands were once common knowledge." 

This "common knowledge" has been almost aban- 
doned. When I took my pediatric training in medical 
school in 1957, very little attention was given to breast 
feeding, and a great deal of time was utilized learning 
complicated and impractical formulas for making up a 
"scientific" baby mixture out of dried cow milk. Disease 
was all around us on the pediatric ward of this modern 
hospital, yet none of us realized that by promoting baby 
"formula," we were probably a large contributor to the 
misery seen around us. Jelliffee & Jelliffee have summa- 
rized eloquently in their classic work Human Milk in the 
Modern World the reasons for the dramatic drop in breast 



170 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



feeding from one hundred percent at the turn of the cen- 
tury, to thirty-eight percent in 1946, to twenty-one per- 
cent in 1956, and to a low of eighteen percent in 1966: 

"The decline in breast feeding in western industrial- 
ized countries in recent decades has been due to the same 
forces as earlier in the Industrial Revolution, reinforced 
by some newer factors. For example, various feminist 
movements developed at the beginning of the present 
century, initially involved the socially well-to-do. These 
included the suffragette movement and earlier family 
planning associations with new methods of birth control. 
All tended to emphasize the need for a woman to strive 
for further economic, political, and sexual equality with 
men, and to endorse this by encouraging more emanci- 
pated roles, especially working outside the home. As 
with cigarette smoking, bobbing the hair, and the contra- 
ceptive diaphragm, the feeding bottle was also used by 
the "flapper" of the 1920's as a symbol of such liberation 
and freedom. The rise of bottle feeding also meant that 
the dual role of the female breast veered more to their 
sexual-esthetic function, with a turn to increased cultural 
emphasis to breast feed only in privacy. Also more re- 
cently, the western cult of ultra cleanliness, sponsored by 
commercially inspired anxieties about real or imaginary 
body odors, and the general visual and actual avoidance 
of human secretions, including urine, tears, sweat, nasal 
mucous, etc., can make breast milk as messy and even an 
unclean bodily discharge... which can be 'noisome to 
one's clothes'." 11 

In "The Cultural Warping of Childbirth," Haire (1973) 
reviewed the various aspects of western culture which 
make it often difficult for the modern mother to produce 
and secrete milk for her baby. These factors included: 12 

Ambivalent prenatal counselling. 

Requiring all mothers to give birth in hospitals. 

Elective induction of labor. 



Udder Perfection 



171 



Udder Perfection 

Separating the mother from familial support during 
labor and birth. 

Withholding food and drink from normal unme- 
dicated women in labor. 

Overdependence on medication for relief of pain. 

Moving normal mother to a delivery room for birth. 

Delaying birth until physician arrives. 

Requiring mother to assume lithotomy position. 

Routine use of forceps and / or episiotomy. 

Separating the mother from her newborn infant. Use 
of stilbestrol for suppression of lactation. 

Delaying first breast feeding. 

Offering water and formula to the breast-fed new- 
born. Restricting newborn infants to a 4-hour 
schedule (and withholding night-time feedings.) 

Preventing early father-child contact. Assigning 
nursing personnel to mother or babies (rather 
than to mother-baby couples). 

To the above list should be added: 

Severely restricting weight gain in the prospective 
mother. 

Cigarette smoking during pregnancy.* 

The use of drugs during pregnancy, including alco- 
hol. 

Berg has illustrated rather dramatically the economic 
impact of bottle feeding substitutes for breast feeding. He 
has calculated that if only one-fifth of the mothers in an 
urban area of a poor country do not breast feed, there is a 
direct loss of $365,000,000 per year. This figure must be 
doubled, at least, because this loss of milk must be matched 



This has been disproved. Smoking during pregnancy poses no risk 
to the fetus. 



172 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



by a similar expense in purchasing cow milk substitutes. 
Then this figure must be doubled again to pay for all of 
the disease and loss of brain power caused by the bottle 
substitution for breast milk. Everyone is losing except the 
manufacturers of pasteurized cow milk formula. 

Reporting on the situation in Nigeria, 1969, Wennen 
commented: 

"For the last ten years a new disease has been ap- 
pearing in many developing countries; it threatens 
the lives of children in the first year of their 
existence; namely, unnecessary artificial feeding. 
More and more mothers start buying powdered 
milk for their infants even when breast milk is 
abundant. Incessant commercial propaganda has 
convinced them that 'this is good for my baby:' also 
the example of the 'elite mother, the fashion leader,' 
babies are healthy and strong... the result is a vicious 
circle of diarrhea — malnutrition, summarized in the 
words 'bottle disease.' "* 

The blatant promotion of infant formula around the 
world has begun to meet with some resistance and coun- 
terattack by concerned nutritionists. An over-zealous 
group calling itself "Third World Working Group" pro- 
duced a pamphlet on infant formula with the title Nestle 
Kills Babies. 

Nestle counterattacked by suing the group for libel. 
As it turned out, this suit was eventually won by Nestle, 
but it was a rather empty victory. The judge decided that 
the term "Nestle Kills Babies" was indeed defamatory, 
but he said, the verdict was not an acquittal of Nestle, and 
he instructed that Nestle "reconsider its advertising poli- 
cies to avoid being accused of immoral conduct" and to 
change its marketing procedures "if it does not want its 
product to become lethally dangerous." Toward the end 
of the trial Nestle withdrew three of its four libel charges. 



* "Our meddling intellect mis-shapes the beauteous form of 
things." — Wordsworth. 



Udder Perfection 



173 



They admitted they had used nurses to promote their for- 
mula among mothers and had used questionable prac- 
tices in marketing their formula . 

Nestle, because of the political pressure, promised to 
go straight. But according to the National Women's Health 
Network,* they haven't done so. The National Women's 
Health Network continues to boycott Nestle's baby for- 
mula, Taster's Choice coffee and other Nestle products. 
Other junk food producers, quick to exploit the move- 
ment against infant formulas, are pushing sweetened 
condensed milk as an alternative, which may be worse. It 
is high in sugar and low in everything else. 

The Protein Advisory Group of the United Nations 
has been attempting for a number of years to stop some 
of the unethical disastrous practices of the baby food 
industry with no real success. At a meeting in 1973, a 
tentative code of practice was drafted, but it has not been 
followed by the food industry. That code read in part as 
follows: 

"No claim shall be made in an advertisement implying 
that any food, including infant formula, is equivalent 
or superior to mother's milk, nor shall statements be 
made in advertisements which would, directly or 
indirectly, encourage mothers not to breast feed their 
infants. No advertisement shall state or imply that the 
product advertised had medical or other professional 
support." 

Mead Johnson stretches and bends this code to the 
limit in their advertising to doctors. They continue their 
vain attempt to imitate mother's milk with their "im- 
proved formulation" of Enfamil. Their concoction of 55% 
coconut and 45% soy oil has, they say, a fatty acid level 
"within the range of breast milk values" and is "nutrition- 
ally unsurpassed." 



They are very female chauvinistic, but they do a lot of good. Their 
address is: 2 24 Seventh St., SE, Washington, D.C. 2 0003. 



174 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



A fatty acid called linolinic acid is extremely impor- 
tant in human nutrition, perhaps more important than 
some of the vitamins. The immature physiology of a baby 
may not be able to transform the fatty acid linoleic to the 
essential linolinic acid. But nature has protected the hu- 
man baby, and none other, from this deficiency. Human 
milk is the only known animal source of this important 
vitamin-like substance. 

What Mead doesn't tell the doctors in their advertis- 
ing is that vegetable oils are unfit fit for babies and that 
the vital linolinic acid of mother's milk is totally absent 
from their "improved formulation." And worse, the trans 
fatty acids in their product may block the baby from 
making any of this vital nutrient. So the next time you 
see some hyperactive kid climbing the walls, ask the 
mother if he was bottle-fed. 

Milk From Unusual Places 

There are some really strange things going on in the 
breast milk world. Women who have adopted babies and 
have never been pregnant have learned to produce perfectly 
normal milk. A study in 1981 13 reviewed "induced lacta- 
tion" in two hundred forty adoptive mothers. 

Half of these women through strong mental attitude 
(oxytocin production) and nipple stimulation (prolactin 
production) were able to produce milk even before the 
baby was obtained! Women who had lactated before from 
a pregnancy were three times as likely to succeed at in- 
duced lactation, also called adoptive nursing. Supple- 
mental feeding was gradually decreased as breast milk 
increased in supply. None of the infants became dehy- 
drated or failed to gain weight. 

The editor of the journal in which this report ap- 
peared felt constrained to refute the basic premise of the 
article. He said, "The title of this report suggests that no 
puerperal (not pregnant) adoptive mothers were somehow 



Udder Perfection 



175 



able to secrete milk for their infants... true lactation does 
not occur under circumstances described here ...Attempts 
to nourish a baby by a nonpuerperal mother cannot 
provide a mother's milk...: Ed."* 

You were amazed to find that non-pregnant women 
can nurse? Wait until you read this next part.** 

There's an herb grown in Guatemala and the surround- 
ing countries called "ixbut," pronounced "iss' boot ." 14 This 
herb is said to be a powerful galactagogue.*** A report in 
"Flora of Guatemala" states that ixbut will double the 
quantity of milk from cows and that a broth of it will 
greatly increase milk flow in lactating mothers. It is also 
claimed that ixbut will cause milk production in non- 
pregnant women. Countless tales are heard in Guatemala 
about the wondrous powers of ixbut. It is claimed that 
aged grandmothers and even great-grandmothers, 
through the magic of ixbut, can nurse babies through 
their withered breasts! 

Bertha Garcia, a teacher with a nutritional institute 
in Guatemala, authenticated one case . 15 While on a di- 
etary survey, she met a forty-five year old Indian woman 
who was nursing a small fourteen-month old baby. The 
mother of the baby, her sister, had died in childbirth. 
They were too poor to buy milk for the baby, so the aunt, 
who had not nursed a baby in twenty-five years, took it 
upon herself to nurse the baby. She took ixbut tea for sev- 
eral months and nursed successfully. Garcia, skeptical 
about her claim, asked to see her breasts. There was no 
doubt that she was lactating normally. 

But here's the real show-stopper as reported by 
Rosengarten: 16 



* Ed, you're dead wrong. 

** You're not going to believe it. 

*** Black's Medical Dictionary: "Galactagogues are drugs which 
increase the flow of milk in nursing women." 



176 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



"An even more curious incident involving ixbut was 
reported in a Guatemalan newspaper in November, 

1952: During the late 1890's, a Guatemalan physician. 

Dr. Pedro Molina, was at his home near Flores, Peten. 

One afternoon, he received a message that he was ur- 
gently needed by a woman in labor. By the time he ar- 
rived at the isolated, humble, native hut, he managed 
to save the life of the baby girl, but the mother died. 

Dr. Molina thereupon asked the feeble great- 
grandfather, who appeared to be at least ninety years 
old, what woman was going to nurse the infant. This 
venerable progenitor replied that no woman was 
around, but no woman was in fact needed since he 
himself would be the wet nurse; he was going to drink 
a tea of the medicinal herb, ixbut which would enable 
him to provide milk for his new great-granddaughter. 

The physician objected and reluctantly departed. Six 
days later. Dr. Molina returned to check on the 
condition of the baby; he found the old man boiling 
ixbut leaves in a pot of water; for five days he had 
been drinking the infusion, but he complained that his 
swollen breasts hurt him when the infant suckled. The 
physician examined the great-grandfather's breasts 
which indeed were enlarged like the teats of a perfect 
wet nurse and were exuding a milky juice that tasted 
like mother's milk. The baby was thriving."* 

Before you laugh that story off you should know 
that bulls have been induced to lactate by hormonal 
manipulation. Professor W.E. Peterson reported 17 that 
bulls and steers have been made to produce milk in small 
amounts that was normal in character. 

What To Do 

Concerning the breast milk/cow milk formula 
controversy, much can be done to help the United States 
(and the world) get back to basic breast feeding. 



I'm not sure I believe it, either. 



Udder Perfection 



177 



We must encourage medical schools to increase the 
time allowed for teaching the importance of breast 
feeding infants. The book by Jelliffee entitled Human Milk 
and the Modern World should become a basic textbook in 
every medical school in the United States. Nurses and 
other paramedical personnel need, of course, to receive 
similar education. 

Legislators and other leaders in the community need 
to be apprised of the situation as it exists today. I would 
recommend that copies of this book be given to people in 
positions of influence. For the professional, I would again 
recommend Human Milk and the Modern World by 
Jelliffee & Jelliffee. 

As far as educating the general public is concerned, 
the LaLeche League is the single best way to get the infor- 
mation to the general public. This is a very cooperative and 
enthusiastic organization that will help you in any way 
that they possibly can to help educate the people in your 
community as to the importance of breast feeding. 

Pressure must be put on the various baby formula 
companies to discourage them from their unethical and 
counter-productive practices. These companies are very 
sensitive to criticism, especially when it is public. 

Every effort should be made to keep the commercial 
formula companies from unduly influencing school chil- 
dren as to the importance of natural feeding. The com- 
mercial milk companies do an excellent job with 
beautiful, expensive brochures and scientific material, to 
present their side to the school children. To put it mildly, 
the National Dairy Council has been extremely successful 
in this regard. 

Jack Mathis, President of Mathis Dairy, Atlanta, 
Georgia, remarked in a talk to the National Health Fed- 
eration, that his dairy has for a number of years routinely 
taken colostrum from the cow and frozen it so as to have 
it handy in case of illness in a calf. He found that when 



178 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



the calf becomes ill and is fed colostrum it will almost 
always rapidly improve. Without the colostrum the calf 
will often die. 

There is no reason why this same principle cannot 
apply in human medicine. Breast banks were not uncom- 
mon in earlier decades of this century. We need to go 
back and investigate these banks and put them in use 
wherever practicable. 

REFERENCES 

1. Sheehan & Davis, 1968. 

2. Klagsbrun, et al, J. Surg. Res., 26, 417-422 (1979). 

3. Sinclair & Crawford, 1973. 

4. Pediatrics, Volume 64, Nr. 4, pp. 550. 

5. Johnson & Salisbury, 1975. 

6. 6. Human Milk in the Modern World, Oxford University 
Press, 1978. 

7. 7. New Zealand Med. Journal, Vol. 76, #482, 1972, pp. 
28-31. 

8. Hollen, Journal Ped. Env. Child. Health, 20, 288, 1976. 

9. Grulee, 1934. 

10. Jelliffee & Jelliffee, 1975-1976. 

11. Wickes, 1953. 

12. Op. cit., pp. 193. 

13. Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey, Vol. 36, Nr. 11, 
November 1981. 

14. Botanical Museum Leallets, Harvard University, Vol. 26, 
Nr. 9-10, pp. 277. 

15. Op. cit., pp. 278. 

16. Op. cit., pp. 278. 

17. Discussion at the annual Convention of the Milk 
Industry Foundation, Atlantic City, New Jersey, October 
18, 1950. 



Chapter X 



"THIS GREASY COUNTERFEIT"' 

"Butter and eggs are the innocent victims of the... anti- 
cholesterol establishment which attempts to replace 
proven foods with untried substitutes." 1 

Kurt A. Oster, M.D. 

In 1886 the first great impassioned controversy in 
the Congress developed involving a pure food issue. This 
issue was over oleomargarine and whether it should have 
"equal protection" with butter. A bill was introduced in 
Congress to place a tax on oleomargarine. Never before in 
the history of the Congress had there been such a hot and 
emotional debate over food. Representative William Hatch 
of Missouri termed the controversy the "most remarkable 
elementary contest that has been on this floor for many 
years." 

The issue excited a great public interest. In the words 
of Representative Warner Miller of New York, it would be "a 
new species of legislation, or largely so, in this country and 
into our system." A South Carolina senator termed it "the 
most flagrant, unblushing disregard of the principles of 
the constitution that has ever been introduced into the 
Congress." 

Emperor Napolean III had personally promoted the 
quest to find a substitute for butter which would be less 
expensive and of better keeping qualities. A French food 
chemist by the name of Hippolyte Mege-Mouriez* pat- 
ented his invention of oleomargarine in 1869. He had done 
his research on the royal farms of Napoleon III at Vincennes. 
Mege began to manufacture his "beurre economique" in 
Paris just after the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War.** 

* We'll just call him Mege. 

** Ironically, no French chef who takes pride in his saute would ever 
use margarine. 



180 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



In 1873 the United States Dairy Company of New 
York City acquired the Mege patent and began producing 
oleomargarine. Many Americans at this time, some one 
hundred-eighty in all, applied for similar artificial butter 
patents. 

Dairymen immediately began to react to this compe- 
tition and began to have laws passed to regulate the sale 
of oleomargarine. In 1884 New York actually passed a 
law banning oleomargarine completely, but this was de- 
clared unconstitutional by the New York Supreme Court. 

Mege's system of production of margarine was bi- 
zarre. He used chopped up stomachs of cattle, finely 
chopped udders of cows or hogs or ewes, added carbon- 
ated soda, coloring matter, and salt to create this new food, 
called oleomargarine. As James Harvey Young stated, 
"What lured them, the Chicago Meat Packers, was a desire 
to put to profitable use everything but the pig's squeal." 2 The 
packers used "neutral" pork fat by using a new deodorizing 
process. The pork fat was mixed with beef fat and then 
pressed through a cloth to separate the oleo oil. This was 
sometimes mixed with milk or cream to make a high 
grade of oleo. They called the mixture "Butterine." The 
manufacturers preferred this name to oleomargarine. 
There were many variations to this technique, depending 
on the manufacturers. They were careful to package the 
product in tubs shaped just like those traditionally used 
for butter. 

This "Butterine" was aggressively marketed and was 
often fraudently sold at the retail level as butter. As the 
imitation butter bit deeper into the natural butter market, 
dairymen reacted even more strongly and set up a con- 
vention to pass national laws against the misrepresentation 
of "Butterine" and oleomargarine. From this convention a 
bill was formulated and was presented to the Congress of 
the United States in 1886. It quickly passed the House, 
and after some modification by the Senate, it was signed 
into law by President Grover Cleveland. 



This Greasy Counterfeit 



181 



Senator Bob LaFollette, never at a loss for words, 
had this to say, "Ingenuity, striking hands with cunning 
trickery, compounds a substance to counterfeit an article 
of food. It is made to look like something it is not; to taste 
and smell like something it is not; to sell like something 
it is not; and so deceive the purchaser. This monstrous 
product of greed and hypocrisy makes its way into the 
home and on the table of every consumer. Here is a vil- 
lainous device for making money lawlessly, subtly, eating 
the heart out of an industry which is to the government 
what blood is to the body." 

The fight in Congress made it clear that this was not 
a nutritional issue at that time but an economic one. As 
pointed out by Young, one man in a single factory could 
make more margarine than all of the butter that all of 
New York's farmers could produce put together. 

A Chicago representative claimed that the bill to tax 
oleomargarine was a blatant attempt "to revive the 
drooping dairy interests." The "drooping dairy interests" 
had indeed brought the bill about. Farming was greatly 
depressed, and the dairy industry was justifiably con- 
cerned about the impact of this new butter substitute, 
oleomargarine. 

The defenders of oleomargarine pointed out that 
new inventions often cause the demise of the old. They 
claimed that this was a great invention of modern science 
and should not be obstructed because of dairy interests. 
They even went so far as to claim that oleomargarine was 
better than butter.* Dr. Charles F. Chandler, a medical 
professor from Columbia College of Medicine, even went 
so far as to testify that margarine was butter made by a 
safe new process. Replying to this. Senator Palmer called 
oleo the "monumental fraud of the 19th century." 

With remarkable prescience which has only begun to 
be appreciated today, D.E. Salmon, Chief of Bureau of 



* Doctors are now telling their patients the same thing. 



182 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



Animal Industry, said that an invention like oleomarga- 
rine "which introduces a radical change to the manufac- 
ture of an article of food which goes on the table of every 
family in the land might produce an unexpected and remark- 
able effect on the public health. " (Emphasis added.) 

Salmon had sounded a very wise and justified word 
of caution, but it added to the hysteria among the de- 
fenders of butter. Witnesses testifying before the House 
Committee asserted, "Dead horses, dead cows, and even 
dead dogs, when they had been shot for hydrophobia, 
and other carcasses of the city were... taken to a render- 
ing establishment... where the great bulk of these things 
were made into 'pure' oleo oil." Dr. Thomas Taylor of the 
Department of Agriculture suggested that margarine fac- 
tories might be the destination for drowned sheep and 
for hogs dead from cholera and from a diet of distillery 
swill. A North Carolina Congressman said that margarine 
was the sort of carrion that only jackals and turkey buz- 
zards reveled in. 

A spokesman for the leading margarine* manufac- 
turers replied that only fresh fat was used in their prod- 
uct. The friends of butter remained skeptical. 

But many times over it was shown during the house 
reports by members of the Congress that strong acids and 
alkalis were being used to deodorize stale and noxious 
fats to make "bastard butter." 

Representative Grout, "Who will say that the things 
we eat are not, like Caesar’s wife, to be above suspicion?" 
The oleo manufacturers defended themselves against 
these charges and denied using most of the fifty danger- 
ous ingredients that had been cited in testimony. 

Another serious charge leveled at the oleo makers 
by the dairy interests was that bacteria, parasites, spores, 
mold, hair, bristles, and portions of worms were to be 



It should be pronounced as in Margaret, a hard "G" as the word 
comes from the Greek margarites meaning "pearl-like". Forget it. 




The Butter-Margarine Issue was Rather Emotional. 



184 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



found in the oleo. This "cheap, nasty grease" could be fa- 
tal, according to a North Carolina representative who 
said that many of those who ate it might have a coroner's 
verdict of "died of bogus butter." Animal fat, countered 
the defenders of oleo, did not contain germs and worms 
which were only found in the muscle of animals. There- 
fore, they said, the charges were ridiculous. 

The oleo manufacturers asserted that their product 
was equal to the best butter and was in fact perhaps su- 
perior. They noted that the dairymen were not always 
clean in their habits or above reproach, that butter was 
sometimes adulterated with beets, carrots, and potatoes. 
That, in fact, dairies often bought oleo oil to supplement 
their cream. While condemning the oleo manufacturers 
for coloring their product, they asserted butter makers 
resorted to dyes to color their own product. 

In desperation the dairy industry introduced legisla- 
tion to tax oleo out of existence. After a very emotional 
debate, a law was passed in 1886 which taxed oleomar- 
garine to remove its economic advantage over butter. 
Another fiery debate took place in 1948 (See Appendix 
V), but in 1950 the tax on margarine was removed. It took 
64 years. 

Although motivated by profit just as much as the 
oleo manufacturers, subsequent research has proven the 
dairy interests to be correct in many of their accusations 
concerning the nutritional shortcomings of oleo. 

Dr. T.W. Gullickson, Professor of Dairy Chemistry, 
University of Minnesota, proved the nutritional superior- 
ity of butterfat over vegetable oils, which are the main in- 
gredients of the vegetable margarines. Gullickson used 
skim milk and combined it with lard, tallow, coconut oil, 
corn oil, cottonseed oil or soybean oil in place of the 
cream and fed it to calves. The vegetable oil substitutes 
were mixed with skim milk in an attempt to imitate the 
3.5 percent butterfat of milk. As often happens in research, 
they proved something entirely different from their 



This Greasy Counterfeit 



185 



original objective. They had set out to find a cheaper way 
to raise calves for veal production. What they found was 
that calves will only grow on God's own natural milk, 
and when fed vegetable oil substitutes instead of the 
cream, they sicken and die. 

On the corn oil mix three out of eight died within 
one hundred-seventy days, some as soon as thirty-three 
days. On cottonseed oil three out of four died within one 
hundred-twenty-six days. Pick your favorite vegetable 
oil — the result was the same. The survivors quickly re- 
covered when switched to whole raw milk. If vegetable 
oil products are so devastating to the health of calves, do 
you think maybe they are bad for you, too? 

The American Medical Association took cognizance 
of these significant findings, "...the consuming public has 
a right to demand that the practice of clearly distinguish- 
ing between margarine and butter, so that every one can 
recognize them, be continued." 

Professor T.H. Frandsen, Department of Dairy In- 
dustry, Massachusetts State College, was even more 
adamant , 3 "Butter and margarine should be advertised 
and sold for exactly what they are. There should be no at- 
tempt to deceive or pawn off margarine for butter ..." 

The current practice, encouraged by doctors and the 
American Heart Association, of increasing the consump- 
tion of vegetable oils in the diet is a nutritional disaster. 
Unsaturated fatty acids are needed only in small 
amounts in the diet. They are in adequate supply in veg- 
etables, nuts, and meat. It would be difficult, even in the 
average American diet, not to get adequate amounts of 
unsaturated fats. 

Heated unsaturated fats found in vegetable oils 
increase the production of "free radicals," which are by- 
products of cellular chemistry. They are like tiny hand 
grenades that devastate body tissues, leading to dege- 
neration and early aging. These little free radical killers 
lead to hardening of the arteries and cancer. 



186 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



In fact, the major cause of aging is probably "free 
radical" formation.* Free radicals are atoms with an elec- 
trical charge on them. NACL is a balanced compound. 
Take away the Na (sodium) and you have a free radical 
of chlorine, a Cl”. These are the terrorists in your body 
that probably cause hardening of the arteries, leading to 
strokes and heart attacks. 

The reason the oils are called "polyunsaturated" is 
because they have many electrons like the Cl - , in their 
structure. They look like this: c = c — c = c — c — c =. When 
they are oxidized in the body, they form many free radi- 
cals which can attack your blood vessels.** 

Dr. Denham Harman, an authority on free radical 
chemistry and physiology, has stated that a reduction in 
these harmful reactions through dietary changes and / or 
the addition of protective elements in the diet would 
have a drastic effect. "This approach offers the prospect 
of an increase in the average life expectancy to beyond 85 
years and a significant increase in the number of people 
who will live to well beyond 100 years." 

Modern medicine, using a chemical approach, has 
failed to achieve this. The mean life span has remained 
virtually constant at 70 years since the mid-1950's. This 
life expectancy may well decrease in the future if we con- 
tinue to be seduced by the false nutritional propaganda 
of the vegetable oil producers. [This prediction, made 25 
years ago, has not proven to be accurate. Life 
expectancy has increased dramatically in the past 25 
years. There are many theories as to why. I think it's 
because environmental pollution has decreased drama- 
tically, not because of the environmentalist but in spite 



* A "free radical" is not an American communist. You need to 
understand what a free radical is in order to understand why you 
should use lard or butter for cooking rather than the polyun- 
saturated oils. 

** Smog also contains many free radicals. That's one good argument 
for nuclear power. 



PERCENT SURVIVING 



100 
90 
80 

70 
60 
50 

40 - 
30 - 



\ 



\ 



\. 



20 - 



10 
9 
8 
7 
6 

5 - 
4 - 

3 - 



2 - 



LARD — — 24‘ 

CORN OIL 23 

*No. OF RATS IN ORIG. GROUP 



I \ 









-L 



26 



28 



30 



32 34 

AGE -MONTHS 



36 



38 



40 



Sprague-Dawley male rats: effect of dietary fat on mortality rate. 



From The Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, Vol XVII, 
Aug. 1969, #8, p. 727. 



188 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



of them. People have turned overwhelmingly to bottled 
water to avoid chlorine and fluoride intoxication is 
spite of constant pressure from dentists, government, 
commercial interests, and corrupt university scientists 
to drink their mandated poison. As people turn back to 
a normal high-cholesterol, low sugar, high animal-fat 
diet, and clean non-polluting coal, nuclear energy, and 
solar power are widely consumed, the age of 100 will 
start to look like late middle age.] 

Harman studied the effect of various fats and oils on 
mice. He found that rats fed lard lived 9.2% longer than 
rats fed a polyunsaturate.* In humans that translates to 
almost 7 years off your life if you have been suckered 
into television nutrition and American Heart Association 
anti-cholesterol propaganda. 

If the unsaturated oil and lard are pushed to 20% of 
the total diet (well within the range of human consump- 
tion), the life span of the rats consuming the unsaturated 
oil was 17% less than those fed lard. Assuming a 70-year 
life span of man, this translates to almost 12 years less 
life for the oil consumers as compared to lard users. 

Research at the University of Georgia on various fats 
helped to exonerate the fat of red meat. 5 They found that 
adding stearate fat (from animals) to the diet of rats 
lowered cholesterol levels. Vegetable fats had no effect. 
The stearate also lowered blood pressure.** 

Atherosclerosis isn't the only disease the polyun- 
saturated oils can give you. Cancer can be induced in ex- 
perimental animals with corn oil. 6 Hypertension will 
occur in rats and chickens by feeding unsaturated oils 
whereas animal fats (lard, milk, butter) do not cause high 
blood pressure. Amyloidosis, a disease of protein degen- 
eration, can also be induced by polyunsaturates. 7 

* He used safflower oil. Corn oil is even worse. 

** But these studies will have to be repeated. They were financed by 
the National Dairy Council and the National Live Stock and Meat 
Board. 



This Greasy Counterfeit 



189 



The trans fatty acids of margarine, a solid form of 
vegetable oil, may even change the very function of some 
cells. 8 One country, alarmed at the dramatic increase in 
unsaturated fatty acid and resaturated fatty acid con- 
sumption, has strictly limited their content in foods such 
as margarine. Our government remain unconcerned. 9 * 

Rosenfield, in the September issue of Science '81, said, 
"Wouldn't it be ironic... if, having switched to polyunsa- 
turates in order to prolong our lives by preventing atheros- 
clerosis and heart attacks, we were instead shortening 
our lives by prematurely aging our cells and perhaps 
even creating additional cancer risks?" 

A spokesman for the London Coronary Prevention 
Group, Dr. Keith Ball, 10 takes the position that fat is fat. 
Ball said, "It is not always appreciated that butter is also, 
in effect, an hydrogenated product..." 

What he does not tell us is that the fatty acids made 
by the cow are very different from those made in the 
margarine plant by man. The "cis" transfiguration of the 
fatty acids in butter look like this: 



I I I [ 1_ . They are entirely digestible. The 

"trans" form, made at the margarine plant by bombarding 
a vegetable oil with hydrogen and nickel, looks like this: 



r 

| . It was not intended by nature to be used as 

food and, in fact, rarely occurs in nature. 

Ball gives a hard pitch for margarine and a low satu- 
rated fat diet, "The fat switch from butter and other satu- 
rated fats to polyunsaturated oils and margarine has a 
sound nutritional basis." He laments the fact that low fat 
milk is not readily available in England because "...only 
excess fat in milk is considered harmful." (See effects of 
low fat milk on health. Chapter m.) 



Now, 25 years later, they are in a panic about it. Why wouldn't 
they listen to us 25 years ago? Because they only listen to their own 
experts - themselves. It is a closed system. 



190 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



Ball defends his position on the saturated /unsa- 
turated fat issue: 11 "...there is complete agreement by all 
twenty international committees... that there should be a 
reduction of saturated fat in countries with high coronary 
mortality rates." I can't imagine 20 international com- 
mittees agreeing on anything. 

Among this impressive group of twenty are the 
Royal College of Physicians, the British Cardiac Society, 
and Ball's organization, the Coronary Prevention Group, 
London. This is an impressive array of committees, but 
remember the definition of a camel: A greyhound designed 
by a committee. The facts simply don't substantiate their 
encouragement of unsaturated fat consumption in place 
of saturated fat, butter, and meat. 

Man has been eating meat and fat for thousands of 
years, but hardening of the arteries is a new disease . My 
father, practicing medicine in Georgia 75 years ago, rarely 
saw a heart attack. Heart attacks have only become common 
since the advent of homogenized pasteurized milk, oleo- 
margarine, and the increased consumption of polyun- 
saturated vegetable oils. 

A quick tour through the supermarkets will show 
you that in spite of these disturbing findings on the del- 
eterious effects of oleomargarine, it is winning the battle 
for the dinner table every year.* The butter section seems 
to get smaller and the oleo section larger. A study of 
southern households reported in the Journal of the 
American Dietetic Association (July, 1980) revealed that 
margarine was purchased twelve times more often than 
butter. Even farm families use margarine primarily. One 
University of Georgia coed with whom we are ac- 
quainted had never tasted butter until she visited the 
home of a friend in Atlanta. She was from a small South 
Georgia farm town and grew up around cows! 



By 1982 margarine had captured 72% of the butter market. 



This Greasy Counterfeit 



191 



As margarine is a water and oil mixture, these ele- 
ments must be mechanically forced together. They are 
naturally unwilling partners. This is basically a homog- 
enization process, and some of the same nutritional prob- 
lems arise as we have with homogenized milk. There is 
no xanthine oxidase (xo) in margarine. But instead of ab- 
normally small natural animal fat particles slipping into 
the blood stream as in homogenized milk, we now have 
abnormally small unnatural vegetable oil such as corn, 
cottonseed, and soy oils going into the blood stream 
through lymphatic channels. 

"So what?" you say. The experts tell me margarine is 
better for me — no cholesterol, no animal fat to harden my 
arteries. 

These oils are as refined as the gasoline in your car. 
In the refinery they are treated with a caustic soda solu- 
tion which removes the lecithin, an essential nutrient.* 
Then the oil is steam-cleaned under a vacuum at tremen- 
dous temperature. This second step should destroy any 
remaining food value in the oil, but, just in case, the oil is 
then bleached at a high temperature to remove any color. 

The liquid oil is then chemically treated by being 
bombarded with hydrogen under pressure in the pres- 
ence of the metal, nickel. This "hydrogenation" process is 
what makes the oil look like real butter. But now it's no 
longer a "polyunsaturate" which is supposed to be so 
good for you. 

The remaining step in the manufacture of plastic 
butter is to steam clean it again at high temperatures to 
deodorize it. Then the preservatives and color are added, 
and it is ready for your table. 

The liquid part of margarine, which is the second 
largest component, is usually re-pasteurized, that is re- 
heated, skim milk. So the butter substitute on your toast 
has been steam-cleaned or superheated at least four times. 



* As with most refined products, they throw it back in later. 



192 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



In England butter is rapidly disappearing. It costs 
twice as much as margarine, and the average English 
consumer, not aware of the nutritional problems with 
margarine, is unwilling to pay the additional price for 
butter.* The North European Dairy Journal comments, 
"...it will only be a few years before the English dairy 
industry will be in great need of their own consumers in 
order to sell their product." This is a worldwide trend. 
Margarine has definitely taken over. 

Both World Wars, with their shortage of fat, stimulated 
the use of margarine. Cheap, imported vegetable oil 
became a dominant factor in margarine, and the butter 
interests began attacking this "coconut cow." 12 The 
imported coconut oil was seen as an economic threat to 
the farmer. Actually, coconut oil is the best bet if you 
insist on eating fake butter. 

Southern farmers jumped into the fray on the side of 
margarine. You can't eat cotton, but the cotton has a seed, 
and the seed contains oil. It is even more indigestible 
than some of the other vegetable oils, but at least it's 
home-grown. Southerners grumbled that northern states 
discriminated against them by their state laws, 13 and in 
retaliation some southern states taxed margarine made 
from imported coconut oil. 

By the end of World War II the margarines were al- 
most pure vegetable oil. Eliminating the more expensive 
animal fat** greatly reduced cost. This had a devastating 
effect on the butter industry which could not hope to 
compete on a price basis. The average cost of oleomarga- 
rine in 1930 was twenty cents a pound. The average cost 
of the all vegetable margarine in 1941, eleven years later, 
was only seventeen cents per pound. 



* He may pay the price later in poor health. 

** Which eliminated the need for the oleo part of the word, 
oleomargarine. 




• 1937 * 1947 *1957 *1969 



194 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



To make matters worse for the butter industry, their 
production costs after the war increased dramatically. By 
1947, butter was one dollar a pound. 

But the final battle in the butter/ margarine war was 
not fought in the Congress or at the supermarket. The 
victory was handed to the margarine manufacturers by 
American medicine. The animal fat — cholesterol para- 
digm, which states that they cause hardening of the arter- 
ies, put the checkmate on the butter knights. Nothing 
remains but a mopping up operation.* Even India is giv- 
ing up its traditional ghee, made from buffalo milk fat, 
for vanaspati — a vegetable oil substitute. 

Animal fat consumption has not increased in the past 
sixty years. The increase in heart attacks has paralleled the in- 
creased consumption of margarine, homogenized milk, and 
other processed foods. 

"Okay, so I might get a heart attack from eating mar- 
garine. But the American Cancer Society, the National 
Cancer Institute, and the Senate Committee on Nutrition 
and Human Needs all say that animal fat, such as butter, 
may give me cancer of the colon. Certainly they couldn't 
all be wrong." ** 

The Senate Committee mentioned above published a 
report titled Dietary Goals for the United States . 14 The 
committee came down hard on saturated fat relating it to 
"... six of the ten leading causes of death..." Down with 
saturated and up with unsaturated fat, they recom- 
mended. Everyone agreed.*** Thence began the rush to 
the sea — coconut, cottonseed, corn, palm, and soybean 
oils; skim milk; "whitener"; eggbeaters. What did we find 
when we got there? More atherosclerosis, not less. 



* By 1970, Americans were consuming ten pounds of margarine 
per person per year. That doesn't leave much room for butter. 

** Yes, they could. 

*** Including me at the time, until I did my homework. 



This Greasy Counterfeit 



195 



A group of bright graduate students at the Univer- 
sity of Maryland Department of Chemistry and Dairy 
Science scratched their heads and wondered if maybe 
these prestigious societies, institutes, and select commit- 
tees were going in the wrong direction. 15 Why did the 
situation get worse instead of better when the diet was 
changed from animal fat to vegetable fat? 

The facts are quite different from what is generally 
believed. The percentage of animal fat in the diet has 
steadily decreased over the past sixty years. The percent- 
age of vegetable fat in the diet has increased markedly in 
this same period, about 400%. The proportion of animal 
fat in the American diet dropped from 83% in 1910 to 
62% in 1972. 

The Maryland investigators restudied the Senate 
committee's sources of information and found that their 
conclusions implicating animal fat in cancer were the re- 
sult of errors in arithmetic! The dramatic increase in fat 
consumption was not from animal fat as reported by the 
Senate Committee but a 90% increase in vegetable oils and 
margarine consumption. 

There is a great deal of misunderstanding, even among 
scientists, about which fats are saturated and which are not. 
How many people realize that coconut oil, which is used 
extensively in candy, baby formula, baked goods, fake 
milk, and many other junk foods, is over twice as saturated 
as pork fat?'° Beef fat is only 48% saturated, pork fat 40% 
saturated, but coconut oil is 95% saturated. In fact, since 
1929, more saturated fat in the diet has come from vegetable 
fat than from beef. Yet Wynder, in 1975, editorialized 17 that 
beef was "...the major source of saturated fat in the adult 
population of the United States." 

The experts on the Senate Select Committee claim 
that countries with a high animal fat intake have higher 
rates of colon and breast cancer. This is simply not true. 
In fact, the opposite appears more likely. 



196 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



Take Finland and the Netherlands for example. 18 
Their per capita daily animal fat consumption is the same. 
But the Dutch consume four times as much vegetable fat 
as the Finns, and they have twice the rate of colon and 
breast cancer. Many other examples could be cited. 19 

Enig and co-workers at the University of Maryland 
did a statistical analysis of the same USDA data relied on 
by the Senate Committee. They found a "strong significant 
positive correlation with ...vegetable fat, and an essentially 
strong negative correlation ...with animal fat to total cancer 
deaths (and) breast and colon cancer incidence." 

In plain language, you are more likely to get cancer 
from vegetable fat, such as margarine, than you are from 
animal fat such as butter. "Negative correlation" means 
that despite what the experts said, butter and other ani- 
mal fats may be protective from cancer! 

Promoters of the animal fat theory of cancer causa- 
tion don't like to be reminded that Tannenbaum, in his 
original work thirty-five years ago on dietary fat and 
cancer, used hydrogenated cottonseed oil and soybean 
oil, not animal fat. * 

The major factor causing vegetable fats to be 
carcinogenic is probably the hydrogenation process 
which changes the unsaturated fatty acids to the trans 
form. We described this on page 179. The trans fatty acids 
accumulate in the blood cells causing them to explode. 20 . 
They probably accumulate in most organs of the body 
and they cause swelling of liver cells. 21 . Margarine and 
vegetable shortenings may contain as much as 47% and 
58% respectively of trans fatty acids. Think about that the 
next time you butter your toast with "nature's own" corn 
oil margarine. 

Not that some unsaturated fatty acids in their unal- 
tered state aren't important. There's a whole new class of 



* Cottonseed becomes cotton and cotton is good for making clothes; 
soybean is good for making gasoline. 



This Greasy Counterfeit 



197 



vitamin-like substances called the "F complex." It in- 
cludes unpronounceable things like eicosapentonoic acid 
and docohexanoic acid. But you don't get these from the 
oils and margarine sold in your local supermarket. Find a 
good nutritionist and discuss it with him. It's important. 

Why did the McGovern Committee ignore the scien- 
tific literature incriminating vegetable fats in atheroscle- 
rosis? Extensive studies 22 with monkeys fed vegetable oils 
proved beyond a doubt that peanut oil, coconut oil, and 
other vegetable fats cause severe hardening of the ar- 
teries. With the current fixation on cholesterol in the nu- 
tritional establishment, it is important to note that on 
peanut oil the serum cholesterol remained low. The pea- 
nut oil may kill you, but you can die with a normal cho- 
lesterol.* 

Dr. Elspeth B. Smith, Department of Pathology, 
University of Aberdeen, Scotland, remarked on this 
extremely important vegetable oil research in a letter to 
the British 

Journal, Lancet : 23 "Inexplicably, this work is totally 
ignored by advocates of dietary change although it ema- 
nates from a leading... laboratory in Chicago, and not 
from a crank in an obscure institute.** It is ignored both 
at the clinical level, and by the many committees set up to 
make dietary recommendations..." (Emphasis added.) 

By implication. Smith says, the polyunsaturates pro- 
moters support the following formulas: 

Animal fat= butter = saturated fat= BAD 

Polyunsaturated= vegetable= GOOD*** 

Smith suggests that these misled scientists stop "... 
campaigning for destruction of the dairy industry which 

* Jimmy Carter is not going to like this. 

** Not that "cranks" aren't occasionally right. Some people think I'm 
a crank. 

*** Butter is only 65% saturated; coconut oil is 95%. But you must 
forget what you were taught about saturated fat. SATURATED = 
GOOD 



198 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



produces their milk, the cheapest source of first class pro- 
tein available." 

Other than the fact that margarine may kill you, what 
else is wrong with it? An English institution for boys ran 
a nutritional experiment in 1938.24 A group of boys were 
fed one and three-fourths ounces of New Zealand "grass-fed 
butter." Another group was fed margarine. The margarine 
proved "worthless for growth," but the butter group grew 
an extra .38 inches during the experimental period. The in- 
vestigators had previously done a similar test on rats. 
They concluded, "There is something in butter that isn't 
in margarine and it works on boys the same as on rats." 

The food engineers seem determined to wipe out the 
entire dairy industry.* Europeans are now producing 
margarine cheese. The price differential will be enor- 
mously in favor of fake cheese guaranteeing its popular- 
ity. It is so much like real cheese that "if a cheese made 
with vegetable oil was judged together with other cheese, 
it is doubtful whether anyone would realize that a mar- 
garine cheese was among them." 25 

Many restaurants keep their cooking oil and reheat 
it, adding additional oil as needed. That’s a lot cheaper 
than starting over every day. But prolonged heating and 
reheating of unsaturated oil causes "polymerization" 
which turns the oil into shellac and varnish. Pinckney re- 
ported 26 that animals fed these oils often develop intesti- 
nal blockage.** 

If you eat commercial food, it is hard to get away 
from these oils because they put them into practically 
everything as a stabilizer. "Brominated" vegetable oils are 
added to ice cream, soft drinks and bakery products.*** 



* And maybe the human race. 

**The animals were often found with their little butts stuck to the 
cage floor because of varnish feces. 

*** No wonder everybody is constipated. 



This Greasy Counterfeit 



199 



Crest Foods of Ashton, Illinois now produces veg- 
etable fat "sour cream." It is doubly pasteurized and ho- 
mogenized at least twice.* The fats used in Crest's "sour 
cream" are our friends from the soap factory, coconut oil 
and palm kernel oil. As I have said repeatedly, these are 
good oils but their product, although it may be sour, is 
not cream. 

"Bogus butter" and its friends have won hands 
down. Margarine is king. 



REFERENCES 

1. Nutrition Today, November /December, 1981. 

2. Bulletin History of Medicine, Nr. 53, 1979. 

3. Certified Milk Magazine, December, 1944. 

4. Prolongation of Life: Role of Free Radical Reactions in Aging, 
Harman, J. Am. Gen. Soc., SVII, 8, August 1969. 

5. Resurreccion, Coster and Bargmann, Univ. of Georgia. 
(Remainder of reference missing.) 

6. Gamal, et al. Cancer Res. 27:1787, 1967. 

7. Cohen, N.E.J. Med. 277:522, 574, 628 (1967). 

8. Fed. Proc., July 1978, pp. 2215. 

9. Fredricks, Prevention Magazine, November 1981. 

10. Fancet, April 22, 1980. 

11. Fancet, February 2, 1980. 

12. The Story of Margarine, Riepma, Public Affairs Press, 
1970. 



We've told you what homogenization does to milk and what it will 
do to you. As far as we know, no one has investigated what 
homogenization of vegetable fat does to you — should be interesting. 



200 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



13. U.S.D.A., State and Federal Legislations and Decisions 
Relating to Oleomargarine, Washington, 1936. 

14. Washington, D.C., 1977, Sen. George McGovern, 
Chairman. 

15. Dietary Fat and Cancer Trends, A Critique Enig., et al. 
Federation Proceedings, Vol. 37, Nr. 9, 1978. 

16. Rizek, et al, J. Amer. Oil Chem. Soc., 51:244, 1974. 17. 
Wynder & Reddy, J. Nat'l. Cancer Inst., 54:7, 1975. 

17. Carroll, Cancer Rev. 35:3374, 1975; Gregor, et al, 10:1031, 
1969. 

18. Enig., et al. Fed. Proc., Vol. 37, Nr. 9, July 1978, pp. 2215- 

2220. 

19. Decker & Mertz, J. Nuts, 89:165, 1966; J. Nuts, 91:324, 
1967. 

20. Ibid. 

21. Wiegand, Acta Med. Scan. 1959, 166 sup 351. 

22. The Lancet, March 8, 1981. 

23. Physical Culture Mag., July, 1939. 

24. North European Dairy Journal, May 1981. 

25. Pinckney, The Cholesterol Controversy, Sherbourne Press, 
L.A., 1973. 



Chapter XI 

UDDERLY EFFECTIVE 

(Milk as Medicine) 



William Osier, the most respected physician 
of the early 20th Century, said, "A rigid milk 
diet may be tried... this plan in conjunction 
with rest is most efficacious." And then he 
quoted Cheynes, "Milk and sweet sound blood 
differ in nothing but color: Milk is blood." 

"The dividing line between a food and a 
medicine sometimes becomes almost invis- 
ible. In many diseases nothing heals the body 
and restores strength like milk."... 

Dr. J.F. Lyman, Prof, of Agricultural Chem- 
istry, Ohio State University, 1928. 



One of the most remarkable and important dis- 
coveries in medicine, the incredible healing power of 
fresh raw milk, goes unnoticed by the medical profes- 
sion. No one knows who first used raw milk as a 
therapeutic agent, probably Hippocrates, the father of 
medicine, who prescribed it for tuberculosis. 

We pick up the story in 1929 at the Mayo Founda- 
tion, Rochester, Minnesota. Dr. J.E. Crewe reported, 
"While milk is widely used and recommended as an 
article of diet, it is seldom used by regular physicians 
exclusively as an agent in the treatment of disease. For 
fifteen years I have employed the so-called milk treat- 
ment in various diseases... the results obtained in various 
types of illnesses have been so uniformly excellent that one's 
conception of disease and its alleviation is necessarily 
modified." 1 (Emphasis added.) 



202 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



Dr. Crewe, taking a weary look at his colleagues said 
laconically, "The method itself is so simple that it does 
not greatly interest medical men." 2 And then, taking a not 
only weary, but a wary look at his associates said, "The 
fact that many diseases are treated and successful results 
claimed, leads almost to disrespect." 

Even advanced cases of pulmonary tuberculosis im- 
proved rapidly with milk therapy. (Hippocrates told doc- 
tors hundreds of years ago that milk would greatly 
alleviate tuberculosis.) This was ironic in that raw milk 
was being blamed, incorrectly, for a great deal of the tu- 
berculosis seen in that period. 

His report on the treatment of edema (swelling) is 
even more striking, "In cases in which there is marked 
edema, the results obtained are surprisingly marked. 
This is especially striking because so-called dropsy has 
never been treated with large quantities of fluid. With all 
medication withdrawn, one case lost twenty-six pounds 
in six days, huge edema disappearing from the abdomen 
and legs with great relief to the patient." 

Patients with heart failure were taken off medica- 
tions, including digitalis (Lanoxin), and "responded 
splendidly." Especially satisfactory, Crewe reported, was 
the treatment of high blood pressure with the milk diet: 
"High blood pressure patients respond splendidly and 
the results in most instances are quite lasting." 

Perhaps the most startling treatment, and one that 
goes counter to present-day thinking, was obesity. Raw 
milk, with all that fat, for the treatment of obesity? Dr. 
Crewe: "One patient reduced from 325 pounds to 284 
pounds in two weeks, on four quarts of milk a day while 
her blood pressure was reduced from 220 to 170." 

Although Dr. Crewe's experiments were on the feed- 
ing of raw milk for disease, the key is not milk, but raw. 
The same results might be obtained, as Crewe implies, by 
eating fresh raw meat. He relates the story of the explorer 
Stefansson, who traveled the frozen Arctic with his col- 



Udderly Effective 



203 



leagues living on fish, seal, polar bear, and caribou — 
nothing else for nine months. Most of this was eaten raw, 
and although undergoing the severest of hardships, they 
were never sick. 

On the return journey, they discovered a cache of 
civilized food, including flour, preserved fruits and veg- 
etables, and salted, cooked meat. Against Stefansson's 
advice, the men ate this preserved food for several days. 
They quickly developed diarrhea, loose teeth, and sore 
mouths. Stefansson immediately placed them on raw 
caribou tongue, and in a few days they were well. 

But, who's going to eat raw beef, raw fish, or raw 
chicken? Milk is by far the most convenient and acceptable 
form of raw animal protein supplying the enzymes, antibod- 
ies, and nutrients needed for recovery from disease. 

Dr. Crewe presented his findings on the therapeutic 
uses of milk before the Minnesota State Medical Society 
in 1923. His report was met with a veritable explosion of 
apathy, indifference and, as Crewe had noted earlier, "al- 
most to disrespect." 

Dr. Crewe again reported on his work in 1930. He 
quoted a colleague, who was also treating with raw milk, 
"This was the worst case of psoriasis I have ever seen. 
This boy was literally covered from head to foot with 
scales. We put the boy on a milk diet and in less than a 
month he had a skin like a baby's." 

Crewe postulated, because of the remarkable effects 
seen in such a great variety of diseases, that raw milk 
may be supplying some hormonal elements to the pa- 
tient. He repeatedly saw marked improvement in pa- 
tients with toxic thyroid disease, a hormonal malady. 

Dr. Crewe was especially enthusiastic about raw 
milk in the treatment of disease of the prostate gland. 
Rapid and marked improvement in the infection and in 
the reduction of the size of the gland was seen routinely. 
With shrinkage of the gland, the blockage will clear and 
surgery can often be avoided, he reported. Urinary tract 



204 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



infections, even without prostate swelling, are greatly 
improved by the treatment. 

Many curious and unexpected results were obtained 
by Dr. Crewe "that could not be reasonably expected." 
Cardiac and kidney cases showed remarkable improve- 
ment. One patient with very advanced heart and kidney 
disease lost thirty pounds of fluid in six days. 

On the treatment of high blood pressure, Crewe re- 
ported that he had "never seen such rapid and lasting re- 
sults by any other method." 

The milk treatment of diabetes was nothing short of 
phenomenal, most patients becoming sugar-free in four 
to ten weeks. This is astounding when you realize that 
five quarts of milk, the amount he used daily for diabe- 
tes, contains one-half pound of milk sugar. 

Jim Redblood was our first diabetic to be treated 
with milk therapy. Jim was being treated at the Douglass 
Center for hardening of the arteries. His chelation 
therapy was working fine, but his diabetes suddenly 
went out of control. His blood sugar rose to well over 
300. He had heard about my milk therapy and wanted to 
try it. He was willing to try anything within reason to 
avoid the inconvenience of daily insulin shots.* 

He was put to bed and instructed to drink nothing 
but raw milk. That meant no water, absolutely nothing 
but the milk. His symptoms of diabetic acidosis — thirst, 
frequent urination, and vague abdominal pain — quickly 
abated. But, typical of patients on a milk fast, he com- 
plained of extreme weakness after about ten days. He 
was instructed to get a whole chicken, make a pot of 
chicken soup, and take a large bowl of it every evening, 
but continue on the milk fast otherwise. His strength 
rapidly returned. 



He was also well informed and aware that insulin shots may cause 
hardening of the arteries, the very condition we were treating. 



Udderly Effective 



205 



On this program he lost weight which he needed to 
do, and his blood sugar returned to normal levels. This 
is remarkable because milk contains large amounts of 
lactose, a form of sugar. We don't know why it works, but 
it does.* 

And finally Crewe commented on that large group 
of patients for which no specific disease can be found. 
They used to be called "neuresthenics." In medical school 
they were half-joked about and called "crocks." They 
were diagnosed as having the "Triple 'P' Syndrome": Piss 
Poor Protoplasm. 

Some of these unfortunate people are undoubtedly 
of weak and inferior constitution, and little can be done 
for them, especially if they are intellectually less than av- 
erage. But the cruel appellation of "Triple 'P' Syndrome" 
should not be assumed until the nutritional factor has 
been thoroughly explored. 

Crewe's classic description of these pathetic human 
beings is seen by every doctor, "These patients are often 
underweight. They may consume a fairly large amount of 
food, but they do not gain in weight or strength. They are 
often nervous and are frequently classed as neuresthenics. 
Usually, the skin condition is poor; they are sallow, and 
disappointed because no one can tell them what the trouble 
is. They do not respond well to medical treatment... Every 
physician knows this class of patients because they are 
unhappy and unsatisfactory to treat." 

Crewe reported that they "respond admirably" to the 
milk therapy, but he added, "The chief fault of the treat- 
ment is that it is too simple... it does not appeal to the 
modern medical men."** 



* We don't know why the chicken soup caused such a dramatic 
increase in energy either, but can 10,000,000 Jewish mothers be 
wrong? 

** This was 1929. You can imagine how they would snicker today. 



206 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



J.E. Crewe, M.D., a determined and dedicated phy- 
sician, left no doubt of his stand on milk therapy, "...the 
treatment of various diseases over a period of eighteen 
years with a practically exclusive milk diet has convinced 
me personally that the most important single factor in the 
cause of disease and in the resistance to disease is food. I have 
seen so many instances of the rapid and marked response 
to this form of treatment that nothing could make me be- 
lieve this is not so..." 

While the fat fighters have been pushing skim milk 
and peanut oil. Dr. Alan Howard, Cambridge University, 
England, has discovered that whole milk actually protects 
against abnormally high cholesterol. Feeding two quarts 
of whole milk a day to volunteers caused a drop in cho- 
lesterol. Butter caused an increase in cholesterol.* 

Dr. George Mann, Vanderbilt University School of 
Medicine, concurs with Dr. Howard. He found that four 
quarts of whole milk per day will lower the blood choles- 
terol level by twenty-five percent. Cambridge's Howard 
concluded, "...all this business that saturated fats in milk 
are bad for you is a lot of nonsense."** 

Human milk also has tremendous potential as a 
curative agent. Breast milk is the only known mamma- 
lian source of lenolenic acid. Lenolenic acid is essential 
for prostaglandin synthesis, and prostaglandins do won- 
derful things for you. They prevent arthritis, (or halt the 
course of existing arthritis). They keep your blood from 
clotting. They normalize weight, work against cancer, 
and alleviate premenstrual syndrome. 



* That doesn't mean that butter is bad for you. There is absolutely no 
proof that a temporary rise in cholesterol is harmful. 

** Sure beats taking clofibrate, a chemical prescribed by doctors for 
lowering the cholesterol level of the blood. Clofibrate can cause 
heart attacks, gall bladder attacks and cancer. 



Udderly Effective 



207 



People used to think John D. Rockerfeller was crazy 
for drinking fresh human milk on a regular basis. He was 
way ahead of his time and lived to the age of 86.* 

Because of advances in immunology, milk therapy 
took a great step forward in the second half of the 20th 
century. It has been known since the earliest days of hus- 
bandry that the newborn calf cannot survive without the 
milk produced by its mother. This initial milk, called co- 
lostrum, was a mystery until the science of immunology 
revealed the secrets of the udder, or mammary gland. 

Colostrum is the milk secreted by an animal (or hu- 
man) before and just after delivery of the young. This 
special milk, which greatly resembles blood under the 
microscope, continues to be produced for about a week 
after delivery of the calf. It is the most nutrient-packed food 
known to man. Yet until recently, it was considered unfit 
for human consumption! 

One early twentieth century textbook on food 
products, 3 written by qualified scientists, listed colostrum 
under "abnormal milk." They said of colostrum, "The 
secretion from the udders of cows and other mammals, 
for some days after the birth of the young, acts as a pur- 
gative and has a pungent taste. It is called 'colostrum,' 
and is not considered fit for human food." 

The authors of this text obviously had never tasted 
colostrum but were merely repeating the folklore of that 
period. Colostrum has no "purgative" action, and it does 
not have a "pungent taste." It tastes like what it is — very 
rich milk. 

Colostrum has ten to seventeen times the iron con- 
tent of regular milk. It contains ten times more Vitamin A 
and three times as much Vitamin D. Many of the impor- 
tant minerals are more concentrated in colostrum. I used 
to take a handful of vitamins and minerals every day. I 
now drink a half-pint of colostrum twice daily and take 
no additional vitamins and minerals. 



He died rich. 



208 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



But the most important ingredient of colostrum is its 
antibodies. The newborn calf is highly susceptible to life- 
threatening infections. The colostrum milk has a high 
concentration of antibodies that protect the baby calf. 
Without this colostrum with its protective antibodies, the 
newborn calf simply won't make it. 

It is very easy to prove that the immune substances, 
called antibodies, found in early mother's milk are a "sur- 
vival package" for the young calf. If two calves are born at 
the same time, and one is fed directly from the mother, the 
other from a lactating cow that has not recently delivered, 
the calf not given his mother's milk will die within two 
months. The calf getting his mother's antibody-packed co- 
lostrum milk will survive even if born in a sleet storm! 

Scientists interested in treating disease without 
powerful chemicals postulated that if this potent 
colostrum milk can shield the young calf against 
practically all bacterial, viral, and fungal disease, perhaps 
it could be used to treat diseases in humans. The 
"experts" of the day, including the American Medical 
Association and prominent professors, said that this was 
"contrary to recognized theories" on treatment, and 
besides, it had been "proven" that antibodies could not be 
absorbed from the stomach and intestine after the first 
few days of life. 

Scientific history is replete with examples of investi- 
gators not realizing that what they had discovered was 
discovered years ago. This was understandable before 
computer science transformed the library into a veritable 
model of efficiency in information gathering. Burrows 
and Haven, in 1948, were amazed to find that milk trans- 
ferred immunity, which Ehrlich and Klemperer had 
proven in 1892.4 In spite of their work, clumsy and con- 
fusing research at the time discredited Burrows and Ha- 
ven, setting immune milk research back thirty years. 

The discovery and rediscovery that antibodies can 
be absorbed when taken by mouth was of colossal impor- 



Udderly Effective 



209 



tance. It opened the way for a simpler and safer mode of 
treatment of diseases — the milk therapy of Hippocrates 
and Crewe made a hundred times more effective by 
hyperimmunization of milk. 

Carrying on this eighty-year fight for immune milk 
therapy. Doctors Peterson and Campbell of the University of 
Minnesota began rekindling the fires of controversy in 1955. 
Writing in the prestigious British journal. Lancet, they 
showed conclusively, through a scholarly review of the 
literature and their own brilliant research that: 

1) Antibody against disease is absorbed from the 
gastrointestinal tract into the blood. 

2) Rheumatoid arthritis and hay fever will respond 
to immune milk therapy. 

3) The udder acts as an antibody-forming organ in- 
dependent of the cow's blood-immune system. 
The appropriate bacteria, fungus, or virus need 
only be infused directly into the teat canal for an- 
tibody production in the colostrum milk. 

Peterson remarked in a speech before the Chicago 
Farmer's Club that their findings on the absorption of an- 
tibody from milk were "largely on the basis of a hunch." 5 
The medical literature for the past twenty years had 
stated emphatically that the wall of the gastrointestinal 
tract was not permeable to immune globulin (antibodies). 
All the work by great men of science such as Paul 
Ehrlich, done in the late 1 9th and early 20th centuries, 
had been neglected by "modern science." Fortunately for 
millions of suffering people, Peterson and Campbell 
looked back into history, learned from it, and followed 
their "hunch." 

The reactionary American Medical Association, in 
spite of eighty years of confirmatory research from 
Ehrlich to Peterson on the efficacy of immune milk 
therapy, has either forgotten or ignored this therapy at 
different periods in time. The Arthritis and Rheumatism 
Foundation, always antagonistic toward anything but 



210 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



conventional chemical approaches to arthritis, an- 
nounced that "accepted medical theory" disagreed with 
the Peterson findings. A representative of the National 
Office of the Arthritis and Rheumatism Foundation re- 
ported that some doctors in Tucson, Arizona "had made 
a study" using immune milk and found it had no effect 
on rheumatism or arthritis . 6 

Things got so emotional in Virginia that this per- 
fectly harmless food was impounded by the state from 
two dairies . 7 They said it was a "biological product" (no 
kidding) and needed a Federal license. The Food and 
Drug Administration, having the typical bureaucratic 
mind and an instinct for control rather than common 
sense declared that immune milk is a drug and confis- 
cated eighty cases . 8 

Although less extensive than his work on arthritis, 
Peterson's work with allergies is no less impressive. The 
cow's udder was stimulated with pollen antigen such as rag 
weed. The resulting immune milk was fed to asthma and 
hay fever sufferers. In a controlled experiment, thirty-six pa- 
tients were improved to a significant degree. The symptoms 
disappeared in a definite order: First, the asthma, then nasal 
congestion, and last, itching of the eyes. 

Perhaps the disease least likely to be cured by im- 
mune milk (or anything else) is multiple sclerosis. Dr. 
Donald H. Hastings, a Bismarck, North Dakota veterinar- 
ian, is a product of the University of Minnesota and so 
was aware of the pioneer work of Peterson and Campbell 
on immune milk. 

Hastings read that the Japanese had isolated measles 
virus from the intestines of multiple sclerosis patients. 
Knowing that Peterson had had success treating rheuma- 
toid arthritis patients with immune milk from cows im- 
munized with streptococcus antigen, he postulated that 
multiple sclerosis is a viral-induced disease caused by 
measles and other viruses. He produced immune milk 
from measles-inoculated cows and fed the milk to mul- 



Udderly Effective 



211 



tiple sclerosis victims. Hastings reported that forty per- 
cent of the multiple sclerosis patients got relief including 
alleviation of numbness, decrease in muscle twitching, 
and less fatigue. 

As would be expected, the Multiple Sclerosis Society 
was not enthusiastic about Hastings' report and deemed 
it "placebo effect." But Hastings countered with the ob- 
servation that hyperimmune colostrum milk and regular 
colostrum taste and look the same, but, "We put people 
on plain colostrum, and it doesn't work. I don't know 
what's going on, but I know hyperimmune milk works. . 
. If I had multiple sclerosis I'd take it." 9 

Milk has been used for gastric disorders, especially ul- 
cers, for centuries. In the 19th century, Cruvelheir advocated 
milk as the most important part of the treatment of gastric 
ulcer. 10 Later, Sippy popularized the continuous use of milk, 
and the Sippy Diet has been the standard treatment for gas- 
tric and duodenal ulcers for generations. 

Milk also contains an anti-viral agent. British stud- 
ies 11 have shown that some mysterious substance in the 
aqueous portion of the milk, below the cream layer, 
works against virus infections.* Formula and boiled milk 
do not contain this virus-fighting agent. 

But with the tinkering of milk, homogenization and 
pasteurization, this highly effective, simple and safe 
treatment for many of our most common ailments has be- 
come a dangerous two-edged sword. We now know that 
while curing the ulcers, we have been giving the patients 
heart attacks! (See Chapter III) 

Benjamin M. Bernstein, M.D., a gastroenterologist, 
described a much more difficult gastrointestinal disease, 
"...very sick with active diarrhea, abdominal pain, loss of 
blood and consequent anemia, frequently with fever, 
markedly dehydrated and in severe cases, 'nigh unto 



It is in a heat-stable macromolecule, but we don’t know what it is. 



212 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



death '." 12 Bernstein enthusiastically recommended raw 
milk in the treatment of this disease, ulcerative colitis. 

It would appear to this writer that colitis would be 
helped by treating with milk at the other end. Milk 
soothes the lining of the stomach and duodenum. Why 
would it not do the same for the lining of an inflamed co- 
lon? We have searched the literature, and find no refer- 
ence to this mode of therapy for colitis. We will pursue it. 

Bernstein was so enthusiastic about the use of raw 
milk for the treatment of gastrointestinal disease that he 
said, "...milk not only may, but should be used in the 
management of any type or variety of gastrointestinal 
disorder. " 13 

There is hardly a specialty in medicine that has not 
in the past successfully used raw milk for therapy. Samuel 
Zuerling, M.D., ear, nose, and throat specialist. Assistant 
Surgeon, Brooklyn Eye and Ear Hospital, reported an 
unusual case treated with raw milk . 14 "Not long ago a 
gentleman came to me for relief of a severe burning 
sensation in the nose, stating, 'Doctor, my nose feels like it is 
on fire.' This poor gentleman was more than extremely 
uncomfortable — he was panicky. He had sought relief and 
obtained no results... the patient readily acceded to a milk... 
diet and in a few days had complete and permanent relief." 

Relief of muscle cramps in pregnancy was reported 
by John Fowler, M.D., Worcester, Massachusetts. He said 
the raw milk therapy was "very effective, and in no in- 
stance where used faithfully, were the muscle cramps in 
pregnant women a cause of discomfort." 

James A. Tobey, Doctor of Public Health, Chief of 
Health Services for the Borden Company, wrote about the 
use of raw milk in the treatment and prevention of 
worms in humans . 15 Dr. Tobey's description of these in- 
testinal and blood invaders is frightening: "The worms 
that plague us include such dangerous invaders as the 
hookworm, the trichina, the filaria, and the flukes, and 
such uncomfortable and troublesome guests as the tape 



Udderly Effective 



213 



worm, the round worm, the thread worm, and many oth- 
ers. Once implanted in the intestines, some of these 
guests not only are very difficult to evict, but they may 
give rise to symptoms that resemble those of typhoid fe- 
ver, cholera, and even appendicitis, and they may cause 
diarrhea and colic and sometimes anemia." 

Although sanitation is the first lines of defense against 
these repulsive little visitors, that is, don't get them in 
the first place, milk is another effective defense. We know 
that they flourish on starch but have a tough time surviving 
on protein. And casein, the principle protein of milk, is 
particularly destructive to the parasite. Hegner proved 
experimentally that a diet consisting largely of the protein 
casein will often lead to a total elimination of the worms. 
To milk's other therapeutic virtues we can add that of 
vermifuge — a killer of worms . 16 

P.I.D. would be about the last thing in the world you 
would expect to be cured by milk. P.I.D. stands for Pelvic 
Inflammatory Disease in women. But that doesn't really 
tell you what it is. P.I.D. means "pus tubes." It's an ab- 
scess of pus involving the fallopian tube and ovary — a 
nasty mess. It used to be a disease of the downtrodden, 
usually caused by gonorrhea. But P.I.D. has moved up in 
the social scale, thanks to the I.U.D. contraceptive device. 

Seaman reported a case of P.I.D. treated in India 
with raw milk . 17 Conventional antibiotic therapy had not 
helped. She went to an Indian country doctor who 
treated her with raw milk straight from his cow and herbs 
cooked in raw milk. In six weeks she was free of disease. 
With all due respect to Dr. Seaman, I doubt the cooked 
herbs were necessary. I would give raw milk all of the 
credit. If you thank that is a little hyperbolic, read the 
classic work on milk therapy by Dr. Charles Sanford 
Porter, Milk Diet as a Remedy for Chronic Disease. 
Available from Organic Pastures, 1 (877) 729-6455. 
Heather and Anthony Zimmerman have done us a great 
service by reprinting this classic book. It was first 



214 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



published in 1911 and, by 1926, had gone through 13 
editions. Eighty-one years have passed; a new edition is 
long overdue. 

I know I would be laughed out of town if I tried it, 
but I would like to hook up a leukemia patient directly to 
the teat of a cow producing colostrum. It would also be 
interesting to see what it would do for an AIDS victim. 

At the Douglass Center in Atlanta we have rediscov- 
ered the wheel for the fourth time. Hippocrates, Ehrlich, 
and Peterson were absolutely right. Raw milk, especially 
hyperimmune raw colostrum milk, is a great therapeutic 
agent against many diseases.* 

Destin Callahan got off to a bad start in life. He was 
not breast fed. Asthma developed by the time he was six 
months old. His mother couldn't recall any time during his 
nine years that he hasn't wheezed. He has been in and out 
of hospitals with asthma attacks, sometimes nearly fatal, at 
least six times every year. He has been dosed with 
antibiotics and cortisone almost continuously since the age 
of six months. Destin is nine years old, but he is the physical 
size of a six year old. He is bright but thin and delicate. 

Destin's mother and father came to the Douglass 
Center desperate to try something different and nontoxic. 
They felt, and justifiably so, that Destin's poor growth 
was at least partially due to constant medication. 

He had been to many allergists with frequent skin 
testing. We decided to have a serum manufactured con- 
taining the various factors to which Destin was allergic 
by skin test. This serum was then injected into a pregnant 
cow. After the calf was born, the colostrum was taken 
from the mother, frozen, and given daily to Destin.** His 



* The Douglass Center is no longer extant. The closest thing to it is 
my newsletter, The Douglass Report, which is available from 
www.agorapublishing.com . 

** The calf was named "Destin" and a picture of the calf, with his 
name on a plaque around his neck, was given to him. 



Udderly Effective 



215 



parents had been told that their son was allergic to milk. 
He was allergic only to pasteurized milk. 

After six weeks of therapy, Destin began to improve, 
and for the first time in his life he stopped wheezing. His 
parents were astounded and almost afraid to believe 
what they were seeing. But, Christmas Eve their hopes 
were dashed. Destin, excited about Christmas, had a se- 
vere asthmatic attack. 

Marcy and Les Callahan were by now convinced 
that immune colostrum therapy was the answer for their 
son. Having the courage as well as the conviction, they 
eschewed the customary medications and gave Destin 
colostrum every hour. The massive antibody attack of the 
colostrum turned the tide, and by Christmas morning, 
Destin was completely without symptoms. What a 
Christmas present for this young man who had hardly 
ever known a well day! 

THE REMARKABLE WORK 
OF CHARLES SANFORD PORTER, M.D. 

After many years of research, I don't know how I 
missed the book by Dr. Porter, written 80 years ago. I an 
indebted to Zimmerman and Zimmerman for unearthing 
and republishing this exciting book on the near- 
miraculous effects of the milk diet. I am going to give you 
some "bullets" from the book to whet your appetite. After 
having your appetite "whetted," you are sure to want to 
purchase it. 

• Dr. Herman Schwartz, an Austrian physician, lived on 
milk exclusively for 23 years . He drank three gallons 
daily and, by all accounts, lived a long healthy life. 

• Dr. Porter received the following letter from Mr. W.F. 
Kitzele of Burlington Iowa: "I have lived on a strictly 
milk diet for the past 42 years, not as a matter of choice 
but from the fact that I am unable to take solid food of 
any kind, even a crumb of bread." Eight years later. 



216 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



when preparing the tenth edition of his book, (1921) he 
contacted Mr. Kitzele to see how he was doing. It was 50 
years since he had tasted any solid food. He was 
drinking three quarts of milk daily and rarely drank 
water - "not a gallon a year." In 50 years he has never 
been confined to bed and "I'm as physically strong as 
any man doing office work." Doctor Porter posed an 
interesting question: "Are adults eating too much food? 

• "I can state here as a positive fact that an immense 
amount of physical or mental work may be done on a 
milk diet. A young friend of mine lived on about five 
quarts of milk a day during two terms of college and 
won second honors in a class of over 300. His board cost 
him ten dollars a month!" 

• Dr. Porter quotes from another pioneer's book, titled: 
"Fat and Blood" by Professor Weir Mitchell. Just from 
the title I would guess that this book is a masterpiece. 
Professor Mitchell reported: "I have seen several times 
active men, even laboring men, live for long periods on 
milk, with no loss of weight..." Dr. Mitchell quotes one 
of his patients, the wife of a lumberjack: "My husband 
is a lumberjack, living behind a chainsaw. He has found 
that drinking four quarts of milk a day while on a 
regular diet, gives him more than enough energy for his 
labor-intensive job." [The emphasis is mine because it 
illustrates that a diet solely of milk may not be necessary 
for a relatively healthy individual. I am personally 
drinking about a quart a day. I would like to drink more 
but my supply is intermittent due to delivery problems. If 
a person is healthy, and has a nutritious, high animal- 
fat, animal-protein diet, one to two quarts per day 
should be sufficient. - Ed.] 

• Ella Wheeler Wilcox, a prominent writer, wrote to Dr. 
Porter in 1905: "I believe in the milk diet and have had 
marvelous results personally. Seventeen other personal 
friends restored their health and their ability to digest a 
natural, varied diet, by taking the milk treatment for a 



Udderly Effective 



217 



few weeks." [Again, please note that extreme measures, 
i.e., an exclusive milk diet, may not be necessary. - Ed.] 
Author Wilcox also remarked on the "marvelous 
complexion" enjoyed by enthusiastic milk drinkers. 

• Porter reports and enumerates on over 50 conditions 
that may improve or be cured by milk therapy. 

• This brief report is not meant to substitute for reading 
the book . There are chapters on side effects of the diet, 
arthritis, "consumption" (TB), indigestion, constipation, 
asthma, and high blood pressure. This book is a 
treasure trove of effective treatment you will not get at 
your local hospital. 

P 205 ORTHOREXIA - A NEWLY RECOGNIZED DISEASE 
SYNDROME 



The Effect of Milk on Growth 




No milk. Died at One-fifth teaspoon of Two-fifths teaspoon 
age of 7 weeks milk a day. Died at age of milk a day. Died 



of 7 weeks, 1 day. at age of 7 weeks. 




Three-fifths teaspoon of milk 
a day. Weight, 150 grams at 
24 weeks old. 

Died at 32 weeks of age. 






v. v- Lt U OOll ' 

Weight, 175 grams at 24 
weeks old. 







One and one-fifth teaspoon of 
milk a day. Weight, 190 grams 
at 24 weeks old. 



One and three-fifths teaspoon 
of milk a day. Weight, 210 
grams at 24 weeks old. 



218 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



Milk probably contains growth factors that haven't 
been discovered. Destin grew rapidly after starting the 
raw milk and colostrum treatment. An experiment done 
with rats way back in 1927 vividly illustrated the remark- 
able growing power of even a small amount of milk. 

The rats were given a very good diet except the milk 
portion was very carefully controlled. They could eat all 
they wanted except for the milk. The above illustration is 
from a March, 1928 publication reporting the phenom- 
enal findings of the experiment. 

Although human milk and human colostrum are 
without a doubt the perfect food for healthy babies, cow's 
colostrum may actually be better than human milk during 
illness. A protein fraction in the blood called IGG is the main 
protective agent of the blood system. Human colostrum 
contains 2% IGG for disease protection. But cow's colostrum 
contains a phenomenal amount of IGG: 86%. 18 

It's a sad commentary on modern medicine that this 
powerful and safe therapeutic agent, which can be pro- 
duced at moderate cost, cannot be obtained readily ex- 
cept in the state of Nevada and Atlanta, Georgia. The rest 
of it, except for that gotten by the suckling calf, is simply 
thrown away. 

But milk is not for everyone. Africans literally starv- 
ing to death have been known to throw away gifts of 
American powdered milk because it harbored evil spir- 
its.* Colombian indians, on the other hand, kept asking 
for more.** It gave the Navajo indians diarrhea so they 
threw it out.*** 

The worst case of misguided milkfare took place in 
Northeast Brazil. Milk was given to the starving natives. 
They were extremely deficient in Vitamin A. The rapid 



* They were absolutely correct. 

** They were using it to whitewash their huts. 

*** They didn't have any huts to paint. 



Udderly Effective 



219 



growth caused by the milk led to an even more extreme 
vitamin A deficiency which caused irreversible blind- 
ness. 19 It was just too much of a good thing. 

Yet, not all dark-skinned people are intolerant to 
milk. The Bahimas of Africa drink six pints a day. In fact, 
they eat little else.* 

We'll end this chapter with an interesting quote from 
an unexpected source: 

"Milk sounds like patent medicines when all its virtues 
are catalogued. It is the oldest prescription for the 
building of strong, healthy bodies; Nature's revitalizer; 
Nature's maker of rich, red blood; Nature's nerve 
quieter. Nature's antidote for that tired feeling. "If milk 
were put up in bottles of different shapes and sizes, if 
it were given fanciful names and announced for what 
it really is — the greatest body builder and health 
restorer in the world — people would flock to buy it at 
fancy prices; but because it costs so little and is 
delivered every morning at our doorstep we seldom 
give its virtues a thought." 

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 1921 20 



This is also true of the Nuers of the Upper Nile, the Todas, the 
Kazaks, and the Hottentots. There are others, but you never heard 
of them. 



220 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



REFERENCES 

1. Certified Milk Magazine, January 1929. 

2. Ibid. 

3. Food Products — Their Source, Chemistry and Use, pp. 387, 
Bailey & Bailey, Glakiston, Philadelphia, 1928. 

4. Journal of Immune Milk, Volume I, Nr.l, June 1964, 
Immune Milk, pp. 3 -28. 

5. Transcript of Speech delivered before Chicago Farm-er's 
Club, April 6, 1959. 

6. The Milk Dealer, June 1960. 

7. Ibid. 

8. Dairy Records, November 1980. 

9. DVM, February 1981. 

10. B.M. Bernstein, Paper presented to the AAMMC 
Conference, Atlantic City, New Jersey, June 8,1942. 

11. Matthews, et al. The Lancet, December 25,1976, pp. 
1387. 

12. Loc. cit. 

13. Loc. cit. 

14. Certified Milk Magazine, September 1936. 

15. Ibid., April, 1935. 

16. Science, 75:225, February 20, 1932; JAMA, April 9, 1932; 
JAMA 83:83, 1924. 

17. Seaman, Women and the Crisis in Sex Hormones, Bantam 
Books, 1979, pp. 203. 

18. Bunce, C.E., Natural History, February 1969. 

19. Certified Milk Magazine, November /December, 1946. 

20. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 1921. 



Chapter XII 

LET’EM EAT STEAK* 

"I like meat and have little faith in dieticians." 

Earnest A. Hooton, Ph.D., Jc.D. 

Professor of Anthropology, Harvard 

Vegetarianism vs. Omnivorism 

If you are one of the ten million American vegetar- 
ians reading this book, you're not going to like this part. 
If you are sensitive, skip to page 230. 

The anti-red meat vegetarians say that most meat is 
contaminated. They're probably right, but so are 
vegetables. Yes, the vegetarians say, but one can wash the 
contaminants off vegetables and fruits, and you can't 
with red meat. 

What they seem to forget is that a great deal of the in- 
secticides sprayed on plants goes into the soil and is then 
taken up within the tissues of the plant. You can't wash that 
away either.** At least the animal has a liver to detoxify poi- 
sons. Plants do not. So why pick on red meat? 

At the Douglass Center we assumed that every- 
thing*** is contaminated, and so we put all of our pa- 
tients on a purified garlic preparation that neutralizes 
many contaminants. For even further protection, we used 
a lot of Vitamin E and Vitamin C. 



* With apologies to Marie Antoinette. 

** Did you know that in 1977 the FDA found that half the southeast- 
ern corn crop was contaminated with aflatoxin? It is also found in 
pasteurized milk and peanut butter. Aflatoxin is highly carcino- 
genic. 

*** Except raw certified milk. 



222 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



Periodically America goes through an anti-meat, 
anti-fat crusade. In 1926 a small but vociferous group 
proclaimed that meat and fat caused kidney disease, ar- 
thritis, and high blood pressure. 1 Part of this was un- 
doubtedly the continuing Puritanical concept in our 
country that anything as good tasting as meat and fat 
must be bad for you. But the explorer Stefansson's ex- 
periments with meat and fat in the Arctic, which we will 
describe subsequently, wrote a new chapter in nutrition. 
A lot of brilliant theories against meat faded into 
nothingness. Seventy years later the anti-meat doomsayers 
are at it again. 

Pm tired of vegetarians telling me the bible says 
don't eat meat. There are at least a dozen references in 
the bible advocating the eating of meat and the fat of 
meat. They're in Appendix VI. I'll quote one extremely 
interesting passage from Timothy I because you probably 
won't look at the appendix: 

"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly that in the latter 
times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to se- 
ducing spirits, and doctrines of devils... Forbidding to 
marry, and commanding to abstain from meats which 
God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of 
them which believe and know the truth." 

According to the anthropologists, man was a meat- 
eater long before he took up Caesar salad. And if you 
think man ascended from the ape, then there is further 
proof that humans have always been carnivorous. It has 
always been assumed that primates were strictly vegetar- 
ians. Nothing could be further from the truth. Goodall 2 
studied apes in their natural habitat and discovered that 
they eat meat on a regular basis. Baboons eat vervet mon- 
keys and other small animals. Chimpanzees eat small ba- 
boons. They love it. 

The National Zoo in Washington attempted to breed 
Amazonian monkeys. They were fed a total fruit diet and 



Let'em Eat Steak 



223 



nothing happened.* Within weeks of feeding meat to the 
monkeys, normal mating took place and many healthy 
babies were born. 

An interesting aside about lions: although they are 
definite carnivores, they are choosy. They seldom attack 
and eat humans, even little ones.** Leakey 3 observed li- 
ons walking through his camp at night sniffing at hu- 
mans asleep. They could have easily attacked and eaten 
them. But they would sniff and walk away, apparently 
not liking the smell of humans.*** 

Archeological studies have shown that Cro-Magnon 
man ate bear, lion, hyenas, wild horse, and the wooly 
rhinocerous.**** In America the paleolithic Homo sapiens 
ate the wolf, beaver, and the American camel.***** 

In China, Peking Man was found to have lunched on 
camel, deer, elephant and ostrich.****** Neanderthals not 
only ate the wooly rhinocerous, but the 12 -foot 
auroch.******* 

There is no society in the world that is entirely veg- 
etarian. The Hindus of India come closest. Dr. H. Leon 
Abrams 4 reports on India, "...the greater percentage of the 
population, who subsist almost entirely on vegetable 
foods, suffer from kwashiorkor, other forms of malnutri- 
tion, and have the shortest life span in the world. "******** 



* Actually, a lot happened, (you know monkeys) but there 
were no pregnancies. 

** Alligators will eat little humans (or anything else). 

*** You probably don't either. 

**** The wooly rhinocerous ? 

***** y ou don't see many of those any more. 

****** It tasteg terrible 

******* ^2-foot auroch couldn't fly, and the Neanderthals ate 
them righ out of existence. 5 
******** prey'd probably never win the Superbowl. 



224 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



There are a lot of vegetarian countries, but none of 
them seem to accomplish much.* 

The Aztecs were carnivorous too. They ate each other. 
By the beginning of the 16th century they were butcher- 
ing 250 thousand men a year! 6 They would rip out his 
heart** then butcher and eat the rest.*** 

During the entire paleolithic period, man spent most 
of his time looking for meat. According to Johnson, 7 hu- 
mans have been on earth "for at least three to four mil- 
lion years." Abrams says 8 that "For all but the last 10,000 
years, or over 99% of this time span..." man was exclu- 
sively a meat eater except for the gathering of fruits and 
nuts when available. 

So don't believe that stuff about primitive man be- 
ing a veggie. The Australopithecines would laugh in 
your face.**** 

Is today's human so different that he can thrive on 
fruits and vegetables where Cro-Magnon Man and the 
ancient Egyptians***** couldn't? Maybe we should take a 
closer look at the modern vegetarian. If you're tired of 
this and convinced that you should drink raw milk or eat 
some other form of animal protein, skip over to page. 

The diets of 119 strict vegetarians in eighty house- 
holds in Israel were studied at the Hebrew University. All 
of these vegetarians were deficient in the essential amino 
acids methionine and tryptophan. 10 

Babies fed a strict vegetarian diet, meaning, of course, 
no milk but just fruits and vegetables, do not grow at a nor- 
mal rate. They get short-changed on B12, folic acid, zinc. 



* Show me a vegetarian country, and I’ll show you a loser. 

** There were no anesthesiologists. 

*** This was, ostensibly, sacrifice to the gods. No one messed with 
a priest. He always got the best cuts. 

**** So would Homo erectus (including those in San Francisco). 

***** The Egyptians used to dilute their milk with urine. It made it 
go farther . 9 



Let'em Eat Steak 



225 



calories, proteins, calcium and riboflavin (B2). 11 Even a 
breast-fed baby may become malnourished if the mother 
has been a true vegetarian for a number of years. 12 

The Seventh Day Adventists are often cited as a 
good example of why you shouldn't eat meat. They have 
much less heart disease and cancer. But they eat plenty of 
dairy products and eggs, and they don't use tobacco, al- 
cohol, coffee, tea, or cola beverages.* 

Puerto Ricans, unlike the Seventh Day Adventists, 
eat large amounts of pork.** Yet, they have a very low 
rate of colon cancer and breast cancer.*** 13 

In case you read that last ***, don't get me wrong. I 
have nothing against Seventh Day Adventists.**** 

Eggs have been catching it too because of their high 
cholesterol content. We have said a lot about cholesterol, 
but we can't stop without mentioning the findings of fa- 
mous heart surgeon Michael DeBakey. He analyzed 1700 
patients with hardening of the arteries and found that 
there was no correlation between blood cholesterol levels 
and the degree of atherosclerosis . 14 

The punctilious New England Journal of Medicine 15 
had a report on eggs and cholesterol. A group of New 
Guinea natives, whose diet is exceedingly low in choles- 
terol, were fed eggs to measure the cholesterol-raising ef- 
fect of eggs. They figured the serum cholesterol levels 
would be blown off the charts. The eggs had no signifi- 
cant effect on the blood cholesterol level. 



* What do they do for fun? 

** Pork would be the perfect meat if it wasn't for trichinosis. Why 
can't they produce trichinosis-free pork? Because of freezing and 
better husbandry methods, "trich" isn't the problem it used to 
be. We eat pork at least once a week. Try a pork loin marinated 
in soy sauce - fantastic! 

*** They also have a lot of fun. 

**** My son, William Campbell Douglass, III, is an SDA. He's a good 
kid, a definite improvement over his father. 



226 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



Another study done by the American Cancer Soci- 
ety 16 revealed that non-egg users had a higher death rate 
from heart attacks and strokes than egg users. This was a 
very large (and so convincing) study involving over 
800,000 people. 

After a heart attack, the cardiologist will inevitably 
place the patient on a low-cholesterol, low-fat diet, thus 
making him even more miserable. This type of diet is deli- 
cious to grazing animals but not to omnivorous humans. 

The Medical Research Council of Great Britain in 
1968 did a study in which the fate of patients put on a 
low saturated-fat diet after a heart attack was determined 
and compared to patients on a high saturated fat diet. 
They concluded that the unsaturated fat diet had no ef- 
fect on the ultimate course of the patients. The number of 
second heart attacks and deaths were the same in both 
groups. Two other studies, one done in Oslo, Norway 
and one in England, came to the same conclusion. 

Professor H. Leon Abrams, Jr. sums it up, 17 "Any one 
who deliberately avoids cholesterol in his diet may be 
inadvertently courting heart disease."* 

Abrams also pointed out that meat, being a much 
more concentrated protein than plant protein requires 
two-thirds less time to eat and requires much less time to 
prepare. He said, "By eating as much meat as they could 
secure, the Australopithecines... had more free time.** 18 
A few more hits on the vegetarians, and we'll move on. 
Tooth decay isn't caused entirely by drinking 
pasteurized milk and eating sugar. A strictly vegetarian 
diet will do it too. Throughout the Paleolithic period 
when humans subsisted primarily on meat, tooth decay 
was a rarity. As humans went agricultural, tooth decay 
increased. 19 



* What Professor Abrams is saying in a nice way is that the Ameri- 
can Heart Association is giving lousy advice on nutrition. 

** For other pursuits, such as playing cards and frolicking around. 



Let'em Eat Steak 



227 



Eskimos and Icelanders are more recent examples. 
The Eskimos, who are aboriginal, and the Icelanders, 
who are European, remained free of cavities until they 
abandoned their fish and meat diet. 20 * 

The Director of the National Museum in Iceland says 
that it is definitely established that during 600 years, 
from 1200 to 1800 in Iceland, there were no dental cavities. 
The foods they ate were milk and milk products, mutton, 
beef and fish. They ate no carbohydrate. The only 
exception to this was a little moss soup in the summer, 
but this was a rare "fun food" of little nutritional 
importance. 

Two Indian tribes reveal the same thing. The prehis- 
toric Indians of California were vegetarians, unlike most 
folks of that period, and they had tooth decay. In con- 
trast, the Sioux Indians lived on buffalo meat and were 
devoid of cavities. 21 The Pueblos worshipped the Corn 
God, but he was not grateful. They have the most 
wretched teeth of all of the American Indian tribes. They 
live on corn, squash and beans. The Laplanders, who ate 
mostly reindeer meat during the 18th century, rarely had 
cavities. Modern Laps have a decay rate of 85% 22 of their 
teeth. 

The most overrated profession today, except doctors 
in general, is probably dental hygiene, and the biggest 
waste of money is toothpaste, dental floss, tooth brushes, 
and waterpicks. Stefansson puts the case very colorfully, 
"Teeth superior on the average to those of the presidents 
of our largest toothpaste companies are found in the 
world today, and have existed during past ages, among 
people who violate every precept of current dentifrice 
advertising. ..The best teeth and the healthiest mouths 
were found among people who never drank milk since 
they ceased to be suckling babes and who never in their 
lives tasted or tested any of the other things which we 



So dentists did better in the .... period. 



228 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



usually recommend for sound teeth... They never took 
any pains to cleanse their teeth or mouths. They did not 
visit their dentist twice a year or even once in a lifetime... 
so far as an extensive correspondence with authorities 
has yet been able to show, a complete absence of tooth 
decay from entire populations has never existed in the 
past, and does not exist now, except where meat is either 
exclusive or heavily predominant in the diet." 23 

If you feel weak on a pure vegetarian diet. I'll tell 
you why. Venison (deer meat) contains 572 calories per 
100 grams of weight. One hundred grams of fruit or veg- 
etable only contains a lousy 100 calories. In other words, 
you have to eat almost six times more by weight if you 
are strictly vegetarian .* 

Some vegetarians condemn meat because it contains 
cadaverine.** But we now know that this misnamed sub- 
stance is not only harmless, but essential to normal func- 
tion of the brain and the rest of the nervous system. 24 

Remember that we're not criticizing all vegetarians, 
but only the purists who eat no form of animal protein, 
(milk, eggs, cheese, beef, fish, etc.). You don't have to eat 
"red meat." It's just silly not to.*** If you have religious 
prohibitions against meat, then you must eat eggs, 
cheese, fish, and milk. 

The overemphasis of unsaturated fats in the Ameri- 
can diet, and vegetarians particularly, may lead to a brand 
new disease epidemic in the next 10 - 20 years. It is called 
Ceroid Storage Disease. 25 

Ceroid is a wax-like pigment that is formed from the 
heating of unsaturated fatty acids. It's called polymeriza- 
tion and you may ploymerize yourself to an early grave 
if you get too fanatic about vegetarianism. 



* You’ll never make it. 

** Yipes, sounds like gas from a corpse. 

*** Most vegetarians I know will eat a steak if someone else is pick- 
ing up the check. 



Let'em Eat Steak 



229 



Let's look at a typical case of this new disease. A 
young man came to the emergency room complaining of 
bellyache. The operation revealed a spleen filled with 
ceroid. His history was interesting. He had been fed soy 
bean milk as an infant. As an adult he followed a strict 
vegetarian diet for religious reasons. This diet consisted 
of soy bean and wheat protein cooked in corn and 
Wesson oil. A perfect setup for ceroid storage disease. As 
pure vegetarianism becomes more popular, ceroid stor- 
age disease may become more common.* 

Research at the University of Georgia on various fats 
helped to exonerate "red meat." 26 They found that adding 
stearate fat (from animals) to the diet of rats lowered cho- 
lesterol levels. Vegetable fats had no effect. The stearate 
also lowered blood pressure.** 

The observations of the great explorer, Vilhjalmur 
Stefansson, 27 on raw meat and raw fish as a complete diet 
are pertinent to our subject.*** His findings are totally 
opposite to modern nutritional thinking. Here's what 
Stefansson said, "In 1906 I went to the arctic with the food 
tastes and beliefs of the average American. By 1918, after 
eleven years as an Eskimo among Eskimos, I had learned 
things which caused me to shed most of those beliefs." 

Stefansson catalogued the dietary "truths" of 1935, 
which are still believed to be true today by practically all 
schools of nutrition: 

- To be healthy you need a varied diet composed of 
elements from both the animal and vegetable 
kingdoms. 

- Eating the same thing daily for prolonged periods 
causes a revulsion against that food. 



* Then again, it may not. Only time will tell. 

** The National Dairy Council and the National Livestock and Meat 
Board. 

*** I know raw meat and raw fish are not raw milk, but all three are 
raw animal protein and where Stefansson says "raw meat" or "raw 
fish", you can substitute "raw milk". This is vital to your under- 
standing of the importance of raw milk in your diet. 



230 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



- One must eat fruit for a "balanced" diet. 

- One must eat vegetables for a "balanced" diet. 

- Nuts and coarse grains are necessary. 

- Certain harmful bacteria will flourish in the intes- 
tine if you eat too much meat. 

- The less meat you eat the better. It will cause ar- 
thritis, hardening of the arteries, high blood pres- 
sure, and a calcium deficiency. 

- You should, in fact, be a vegetarian. 

- Without fruits or vegetables, especially fruits, you 
will get scurvy. 

- Man cannot live on meat alone. Your kidneys will 
stop working. 

Stefansson proved that all of these views are incor- 
rect. He ridiculed them, especially the prohibition on eat- 
ing meat, "There would be protein poisoning and, in 
general, hell to pay," he said, with tongue in cheek. 

Living with various Eskimo tribes, Stefansson ate 
raw fish for breakfast, raw fish for lunch, and boiled fish 
for dinner. He became quite fond of this one food diet 
and even learned to eat the greatest of Eskimo delicacies 
- raw, rotten fish! "About the fourth month of my first Es- 
kimo winter," he remarked, "I was looking forward to 
every meal (rotten or fresh) ... Civilized people eat de- 
cayed milk products (sour cream) and decayed cheese," 
he said, "so why not decayed fish?"* 

I tried rotten shark in Iceland. Once you get it past 
your nose, it tastes pretty good. On the north coast of Ice- 
land, they still eat rotten eggs. In the old days, they ate 
rotten sheep heads . 28 



Never eat rotten fish in the summer. The Eskimos say it's bad for 
you. Eat it frozen — tastes like a ripe cheese. 



Let'em Eat Steak 



231 



Stefansson, living on fish and water for a year, did 
not get scurvy. In all, he lived in the Arctic for five years 
exclusively on fish and meat, mostly raw, and remained 
in perfect health. 

Whenever the men of the expedition were exposed 
to civilized cooking, they would get indigestion, head- 
ache and feel miserable. In most cases, they would be 
happy to get back on the meat diet. 

Critics of Stefansson said that maybe it was okay in 
the frigid temperatures of the artic under extreme physi- 
cal conditions, but one would certainly die eating noth- 
ing but meat under modern sedentary conditions. But the 
Institute of American Meat Packers believed in 
Stefansson* and donated the funds, no strings attached, 
to authenticate or refute the explorer 's amazing and 
completely unorthodox views on nutrition. 

Six prestigious institutions were represented on the 
scientific committee: The American Museum of Natural 
History, Cornell University Medical College, Harvard 
University, Johns Hopkins University, Russell Sage Insti- 
tute of Pathology, and the University of Chicago. A meat 
packer's representative and Stefansson were also on the 
committee. The study was directed by the dietetic ward 
of Bellevue Hospital, New York City. 

Many vegetarians eat eggs and drink milk and still 
consider themselves vegetarians. Although this is illogi- 
cal, Stefansson said he would also be illogical and ex- 
clude them — nothing but meat, period. 

One leading European authority assured the re- 
searchers very solemnly that the experiment would not 
last a week. He had tried the experiment himself, he said, 
and it was quite preposterous to think that a man could 
live on nothing but meat for a week, much less an entire 
year. Other scientists said that the two subjects, Stefansson 



Naturally. 



232 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



and Karsten Anderson, another explorer, would die 
within fifteen days of the onset of the experiment. 

Stefansson and Anderson thrived on the diet, winter 
and summer. Their stamina increased with the lengthen- 
ing of the meat period. Stefansson remarked that he had 
never felt more energetic or optimistic. It is common 
knowledge that the Eskimos are the happiest people in 
the world when in their primitive state. Stefansson main- 
tains that this may be due to their exclusively meat diet.* 

Inexplicably, Stefansson became ill on the second 
day of the experiment. It was inexplicable to everyone 
but Stefansson. The critics were smirking. Stefansson had 
warned them that meat without fat was an incomplete 
food.** After a few days of fat sirloin and brains fried in 
bacon fat, he was entirely well. Stefansson warned, "If 
yours is a meat diet, then you simply must have fat 
with your lean; otherwise you would sicken and die ." 

Arctic tribes are connoisseurs of fats the way civi- 
lized westerners are connoisseurs of wines. The marrow 
of the long bones is considered the finest of delicacies.*** 
Also held in high esteem is the fat around the kidneys 
and behind the eyeball. 

Contrary to what you have heard, (and what I was 
taught in medical school), you can eat polar bear liver. 
About one time in six, according to Stefansson, it will 
give you a headache but there is no record of man or 
beast dying from eating polar bear liver. 

I use meat as a reducing diet in my practice. I had 
one patient, 5 feet tall, who weighed well over two hun- 
dred pounds to whom I suggested the all-meat diet. I 
didn't think that she believed me and would try the diet. 



* Reminder: Raw milk, in place of raw meat, will have the same ef- 
fect. 

** Just as skim milk is an incomplete food with the milk fat taken 
away. 

*** Except moose nose — that's the greatest. They eat it boiled. 



Let'em Eat Steak 



233 



When she returned to my office three months later, I 
didn't recognize her. She had lost well over fifty pounds 
and thought I was a magician.* 

I found out years later that the DuPont Company 
had used a similar program on their executives with 
great success. Their diet was 70% fat and meat with the 
other 30% for a small amount of baked potato, fresh fruit 
or salad. It was reported at the time, "The reducing of the 
corpulent proved painless, even pleasant, some said they 
were going to stick to the diet permanently." 29 

Stefansson was overweight at the beginning of the 
all-meat diet but quickly lost it. Eskimos, he pointed out, 
are never fat when left on their native diet of meat, 
"When you see Eskimos in their native garments you do 
get the impression of fat round faces, or fat round bodies; 
but the roundness of face is a racial peculiarity and the 
rest of the effect is produced by loose and puffy 
garments. See them stripped and you do not find the 
abdominal protuberances and folds which are so 
numerous at Coney Island beaches and so persuasive in 
arguments against nudism." 

Raw milk and kefir, in spite of their sugar and fat 
content, can also be used effectively for weight reduction. 
This method is more acceptable than the meat diet to 
most people and so it is generally more successful.** 

Although raw milk doesn't contain enough Vitamin 
C, according to the U.S. Government and nutrition ex- 
perts, to supply the daily minimum needed, people on a 
undiluted raw milk diet don't get scurvy.*** This is prob- 
ably because of greater "bioavailability"**** of the Vita- 



* I was more astounded than she was, but I didn't let her know it. 

** Cheaper, too. 

*** Babies are different. See Chapter IX. 

**** The ability of the body to absorb the particular nutrient in ques- 
tion from the digestive tract. 



234 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



min C in raw milk. Or the natural Vitamin C may be 
more potent, thus requiring less of it for good health. 

Stefansson's study of Iceland confirms that milk and 
meat can keep you free of scurvy (Vitamin C deficiency) 
and other diseases just as well as fruits and vegetables 
can. 30 When the Irish discovered Iceland in 700 A.D.,* 
they were forced onto a very strict diet of milk, milk 
products, and fish. Stefansson arrived 1200 years later, in 
1905, to study the Icelanders, past and present. He col- 
lected the bones and skulls from an abandoned medieval 
graveyard and took them to Harvard. These ancient peo- 
ple, who rarely if ever ate fruits and vegetables, showed 
no sign of scurvy. 

Doctors decided in the 18th century that fruits, espe- 
cially limes, prevented and cured scurvy. Dr. John Lind 
had tried to tell them this, but it took them forty-two 
years to get the message.** Then they went overboard 
and decided that if fruits prevent scurvy, then meat 
causes scurvy! 

Some of the scurvy stories are remarkable and pa- 
thetic. The prospectors in the Yukon gold rush often died 
unnecessarily from Vitamin C deficiency — scurvy. They 
would sicken near the end of the winter. Having an abid- 
ing faith in raw potatoes as a cure for scurvy, and they do 
indeed contain Vitamin C, the sick prospector's comrades 
would often go to heroic lengths to bring potatoes from 
great distances for their friend. Usually they were too 
late. The tragedy was that caribou milk, which was gen- 
erally available, would have saved them with little effort. 
Also, they were walking on tons of Vitamin C in the form 
of tundra grass, moss and lichens. 



* That's right, the Irish. The Norsemen didn't show up until 160 
years later. 

** What is it about doctors? Does medicine in every age attract stu- 
dents with the most immobile minds? 



Let'em Eat Steak 



235 



Although physicians of the 19th century had made 
up their minds that lime juice was the specific for scurvy, 
it constantly failed when put to severe test.* Sir George 
Nares returned from a polar expedition in 1876 to report 
that in spite of lime juice they had had much scurvy and 
death. The doctors, clinging to their lime juice theory, 
said that absence of sunlight and lack of amusement had 
nullified the good effects of the marvelous juice! 

Nansen returned from a very successful expedition 
with no illness among his men in 1876. 31 They had no 
sunlight and no entertainment. They did not take lime 
juice but lived on walrus meat and fat. Although 
Nansen's books were best sellers, undoubtedly read by 
thousands of doctors of the period, doctors continued to 
pontificate on meat causing scurvy.** 

The doctors and scientists never ran out of excuses 
for lime juice. Why, it was asked, did it appear to work 
better in the 18th century than the 19th? It took a while to 
explain that one, but eventually they did. They announced 
triumphantly that the meaning of "lime" had changed. In 
the 18th century the juice was made from lemons called 
limes. Now it's made from limes called lemons. 

This travesty of scientific thought was repeated over 
and over again. In the early 20th century, the explorer 
Scott failed on two expeditions because of scurvy. He fol- 
lowed the advice of the leading physicians of the day and 
carried lime juice. The first expedition was a disaster, and 
the second one was worse. All of them, including Scott, 
died of scurvy only ten miles from the final provision de- 
pot. Not one of them would have died if the doctors had 
only heeded the simple advice of Nansen about eating 
fresh meat and advised Scott accordingly. 



* As there was no refrigeration, the juice would rapidly lose 
Vitamin C potency. 

** Even if this book becomes a best seller, because of the typical M.D. 
mentality, it will have little or no effect on the contemporary prac- 
tice of nutritional medicine. 



236 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



I'm not trying to convince you to eat nothing but 
meat. The brilliant work of Stefansson is presented to 
demonstrate some of the inaccurate and harmful beliefs 
of present-day nutrition. You could live on nothing but 
raw meat, you could live well on nothing but raw milk, 
and you could live (but not well) on nothing but raw 
vegetables (especially green grass). 

The ancients of Egypt were a powerful race. They 
performed incredible intellectual and physical feats. We 
still can't figure out how they built the pyramids. They 
were basically omnivorous. They consumed their vegeta- 
bles raw and got their meat from temple sacrifices. 

In the 17th century, Indians of the Northwest Terri- 
tory lived a vigorous life exclusively on meat. French ex- 
plorers of that period were dying of scurvy. 32 They were 
in what is now the state of Minnesota. One of the men 
made friends with an Indian. The Indian liked him and 
told him that he would cure his scurvy if the Frenchman 
promised not to tell the other members of the expedition. 
After the Frenchman promised, the Indian killed a buf- 
falo, cut out the adrenal gland and had him eat it raw. He 
became well almost immediately. 

The Indians had never heard of Vitamin C, so they 
didn't know that Vitamin C would cure scurvy, and they 
did not know that the adrenal gland contains the highest 
concentration of Vitamin C in the body of animals. But 
the Indians knew that if they ate the whole animal, intes- 
tines, liver, brain, bone marrow, heart, and especially the 
adrenal glands, and ate it raw, they would remain healthy 
and vigorous. 

The people of Fichtenstein, a tiny country adjoining 
Switzerland, lived almost exclusively on milk and milk 
products for centuries. Many of them lived to be one 
hundred to one hundred-fifty years of age. 33 

The Samburu tribe of northern Kenya continues to 
baffle the cholesterol-fat alarmists. 34 They drink nothing 
but milk for three days and then eat nothing but meat for 



Let'em Eat Steak 



237 



one day. The sequence may vary, but in general, there are 
three milk days to one meat day. Pasteurization is un- 
known to them. The milk is cultured, similar to yogurt. 

They eat four hundred grams of fat per day. The aver- 
age American, with his hardened arteries, eats a meager 
eighty grams of fat per day. The Samburu warrior, by 
tribal tradition, is bound from age fourteen to an exclusive 
diet of milk and meat for twenty years. No vegetable prod- 
ucts are eaten except for some tree bark tea. 

The Samburu's cousins to the south, the Masai,* 
drink an average of seven quarts of very rich milk per 
day. Their diet is 60% saturated fat. When you consider 
that the average warrior weighs only one hundred thirty- 
five pounds, that's a lot of milk. 

It is true that the Masai also drink the blood of ani- 
mals. But contrary to popular belief, blood is not a rou- 
tine part of their diet. Blood is drawn only when milk is 
in short supply as an emergency procedure. 

Mann and co-workers studied these tribes 
exhaustively . 35 They found remarkably little heart 
disease, consistently normal blood pressure,** no obesity, 
and a complete absence of rheumatoid arthritis, 
degenerative arthritis, and gout. 

What about cholesterol? The average African child 
had a cholesterol value of 138. The average American 
child, 202. With increase in age, the native cholesterol 
values went down and the American values went up. Be- 
yond the age of fifty-five, the mean cholesterol value of 
the African natives was 122. The American mean choles- 
terol for men was 234. 



* As you know, they are both of Nilo-Hamitic extraction. 

** The mean blood pressure at age sixty was 125/76. 



238 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



In his conclusions, Mann did not equivocate, "(The 
studies) show no support for the contention that a large 
intake of dairy fat and meat necessarily causes either 
hypercholesterolemia or coronary heart disease... the hy- 
pothesis relating saturated animal fat to the causation of 
hypercholesterolemia and cardiovascular disease remains 
dubious. (We) favor the conclusion that diet fat is not 
responsible for coronary disease." 

Dr. Kurt Biss, et al, confirmed Dr. Mann's work in 
1971. 36 They performed autopsies on the natives and 
found, in spite of their enormous cholesterol and animal 
protein intake, that they were essentially free of 
artherosclerosis including their heart arteries. They also 
found that "...the Masai are virtually free from choles- 
terol gallstones." 

The American Heart Association and many nutrition 
professors in prestigious universities have gone way out 
on a limb concerning fat and cholesterol in our diet. They 
have recommended a shift to less milk, eggs, meat — what 
they mistakenly call "saturated" fats — to a diet contain- 
ing more margarine, fish, and vegetable oils. They are 
committed. They must continue to support their com- 
pletely untenable and nutritionally disastrous position or 
admit that they have made a terrible mistake.* 

The American Heart Association, the principle pro- 
moter of the fat-cholesterol theory of atherosclerosis, is 
now going after the children and recommending low- 
cholesterol diets for 3 year olds. But the American Acad- 
emy of Pediatrics is striking back. They point out that 
cholesterol is vital in growing children for the formation 
of bile salts, hormones, and nerve tissue. There is no 
population of children that has been raised on such a radical 
diet. Yet the American Heart Association assures America's 
mothers that "There appear to be no demonstrated major 



* Can you imagine those professors admitting that they have been 
giving the wrong advice? 



Let'em Eat Steak 



239 



hazards involved" if the kids follow the AHA's radical 
diet plan.* 

But they go on to admit that "...several epidemio- 
logic studies... have failed to observe significant correla- 
tions among dietary fat, serum cholesterol concentrations 
and coronary heart disease rates." You can find studies to 
prove either position depending on whether you study 
the Masai tribesmen, the Ni-Hon-San of Japan, or busi- 
ness executives at Western Electric.** 

In one study by Pearce and Dayton that the AHA 
did not mention, it was found that eight years on a low 
cholesterol, high unsaturated fat diet caused a twofold 
increase in cancer. 37 One actually needs only 2% of calo- 
ries in the form of polyunsaturated fat. A slice of good 
bread laden with butter should do it. But the AHA is rec- 
ommending a drastic increase to 20% unsaturated fat. 

For whichever reason, political or scientific, the 
Food and Drug Administration refused to be sucked into 
endorsing reckless and unproven dietary recommenda- 
tions to the American people. Doctor Herbert Fey, Com- 
missioner of the FDA, said, "The scientific correlation 
between ...(fat) and arteriosclerosis is an extremely 
tenuous one. Although there is a great deal of publicity, 
there is very little fact that clearly links the ingestion of 
fat in one form or another with heart disease." 

But eight years later another branch of the govern- 
ment did the FDA in. On January 14, 1977, the Senate Se- 
lect Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, known 
as the McGovern Committee, issued a report advising the 
American people to change their diet. They recom- 



* Fortunately, a low cholesterol diet is boring and so children won’t 
stay on it. Just ask a Pritikin graduate how long he stayed with 
the diet. 

** Wouldn't it make more sense just to go back and study our grand- 
parents? They ate plenty of lard, butter, eggs and milk, but coro- 
nary heart disease was rare. 



240 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



mended that the consumer reduce his saturated fat and 
cholesterol consumption by a whopping 40%.* 

The Senators, unqualified in science, were given the 
hard sell by Dr. Gio Gori of the National Cancer Institute. 
He said that fat was a major factor in cancer, and they 
bought it. Doctor Jean Mayer of Harvard endorsed the re- 
port, but not everyone was taken in. 

Doctor Thomas Jukes of the University of California, 
said, "Senator McGovern's Committee on 'nutrition and 
human needs' has issued a preposterous report on 'di- 
etary goals' which calls for governmental action to imple- 
ment the prejudices of the writers... I don't think they 
know what they're talking about." 

Nutrition professor George Briggs seconded it, 
"Meat, milk and eggs are among our best foods and we 
are a healthier nation because we have such good sup- 
plies. We need to consume more, not less." 

The report had a pronounced effect on various gov- 
ernment departments and health-oriented foundations. 
The Department of Agriculture went so far as to issue a 
regulation requiring schools to make low-fat milk avail- 
able to students (See page 35 about the unhealthy proper- 
ties of low-fat and skim milk.) The National Cancer 
Institute joined the gaggle honking for a holy war on 
whole milk, meat, and eggs. 

The worst case of cholesterol phobia on record must 
be that of Doctor Walter W. Sackett, Jr., of Miami, Florida. 
Dr. Sackett, a prominent physician and member of the 
Florida legislature was quoted in the National Enquirer 
as saying, "Milk is more deadly than cigarettes because 
the cholesterol it contains contributes to a million deaths 
a year in the United States." He tells his patients that he 
"... would rather see them smoke a cigarette than drink 



Why would they do this when the dietary cholesterol intake, in the 
past eighty years, has only increased 1%? 38 



Let'em Eat Steak 



241 



one glass of milk... this is murder ...cholesterol kills you... 
surely and ever so slowly."* 

Patricia Hausman, in her anti-milk, anti-meat book. 
Jack Sprat's Legacy, said, "When the last quarter of the 
20th century is recorded in history books, the American 
Heart Association, the Senate Select Committee on Nutri- 
tion... and other organizations that have advocated less 
meat or less meat fat, may well look like revolutionar- 
ies." They may also look like fools.** 

There are numbers of ways that you can eat raw ani- 
mal protein other than raw milk, raw eggs, oysters, and 
clams.*** Most people have heard of the seasoned raw 
hamburger dish called Steak Tartar, although few have 
tried it. It's delicious. The Italians have a wonderful dish 
called Carpacio. It's very thinly sliced raw beef with a 
white sauce — magnifique. Kibe, a North African dish, is 
made from raw lamb. Not bad, but not as good as Steak 
Tartar. The Japanese, and remarkably, a rapidly increas- 
ing number of Americans, eat raw fish called Sushi. Once 
you try it, you'll be hooked. 

Want to live to be a hundred? Eat mostly raw animal 
protein, and you may make it.**** 

Rather than follow a diet from a government report 
based on screwed up arithmetic, you are better off listen- 
ing to Stefansson, the explorer, and Dr. Mann of the 
Samburu studies. They dealt in reality, not supposition 
and politics. You don't have to eat like a rabbit to main- 



* Sackett admitted to smoking three packs of cigarettes a day. 

** Go ahead and read her book, and then decide for yourself. 
C.S.P.I., 1775 "S" Street, NW, Washington, D.C., 20009. 

*** Did you know that raw oysters and clams are actually alive 
when you eat them? So are fertilized eggs. The Japanese eat a 
live prawn called Odori. It tickles your mouth as it jumps 
around. It doesn't want to be eaten. 

**** If industrial pollutants, an 18-wheeler, or modern medicine 
don't get you first. 



242 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



tain good health. You can eat like a tiger and do just as 
well, maybe better (and eat the rabbit). 

Find out which dairy in your community feeds its 
cows the best diet, and then drink their milk — 
unpasteurized. If you can't find any unprocessed cow 
milk, look for goat milk. For some illogical reason, some 
states, such as Rhode Island, allow the sale of 
unpasteurized goat milk and outlaw raw cow milk. 
Others, like Florida, look the other way concerning the 
sale of raw goat milk. More on Mr. and Mrs. Goat later... 



Chapter XIII 



VEGETARIANISM, ENVIRONMENTALISM 
AND THE SEARCH FOR PURITY 



This book was first published in 1984. As Sam 
Goldwyn once said: "We have passed a lot of water since 
then." And we now have a newly discovered disease for 
your consideration, one we should have recognized years 
ago. Looking through the retro spectroscope, the disease 
seems obvious but in science things take time because 
competing interests are always resisting change. I call 
this "new" disease malignant vegetarianism . The 
discoverer of this terrible and sometimes fatal disease is 
Dr. Steven Bratman who has labeled it "Orthorexia 
Nervosa." 

In hope of clarity, I am not going to use the term 
"Myalgic Encephalomyelitis" (ME) to describe chronic 
fatigue syndrome (CFS). The term is pretentious and an 
attempt by the doctors to pretend they know what they 
are dealing with. CFS is also a general term, not a precise 
diagnosis, but it is at least a term people can understand 
and relate to friends who have the condition. Myalgic 
Encephalomyelitis sounds like poliomyelitis ("Polio") 
which it isn't. 

The CFS support groups in England celebrated the 
verdict of a coroner that Sophia Mirza, age 32, died of 
"acute renal failure arising as a result of Chronic Fatigue 
Syndrome (M.E.)" The charity known as " Invest in M.E. " 
stated that they hope "people will now regard ...Chronic 
Fatigue Syndrome as the extremely serious (and 
potentially fatal) illness that it is." Amen to that but 
Invest in M.E., other CFS groups, the neurologists, and the 
psycho-psychology community are all missing the boat 



244 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



on this self imposed slow march to starvation and death. 
The psychiatrists are right for once. But they are 
defending their dark and murky psychobabble as the 
cause when the real etiology of this disease is right under 
their noses (if they are reading this report). This is an 
opportunity for the shrinks (or their little non-MD trail- 
alongs, the psychologists) to make it big with a newly 
discovered disease of immense importance, the 
vegetarian-starvation disease . 

I have always had a dislike for vegetarians and I 
never understood why until Dr. Steven Bratmann came 
along with his insight of a disease complex he calls 
Orthorexia Nervosa . I don't hate vegetarians as individuals; 
I just hate their irrational, self-righteous, and destructive 
attitude about animal foods that have been the mainstay 
of man (and many of the animals) for millennia. 

I have been fighting the environmentalists for years 
as a lying, fanatical, and dangerously destructive force 
determined to destroy modern civilization. They want a 
world dictatorship managed by their crafty leaders to put 
man down to the level of the cow, the clam and the 
caterwauler. These people are dangerous. They burn 
laboratories, they kill lumberjacks, they will stop at 
nothing to save the animals and destroy man. Those on 
the front lines of this epic battle, and believe me, it is 
epic, are like the communist robots of the Stalin years. 
The "useful idiots" as Lenin called them, the berserkers 
at all levels of society, from the Treasury Department to 
the street barricades, will completely reverse themselves 
in their opinions and actions at a signal from one of their 
Great Leaders. 

A perfect example of the "great leader" is a scientist 
who has become the idol of the greenies, a scientist 
named James Lovelock. He has told his acolytes through 
his ever-loving press that nuclear energy is OK. You 
never hear a discouraging word about those "dangerous 
nukes" since his pronouncement. He turned the whole 



Vegetarianism , Environmentalism 245 

and the Search for Purity 

movement around in a week. It's easy to do in a group 
that has great passion but little common sense. 

It dawned on me, after reading Dr. Bratmann's 
views, that the vegetarians were part and parcel of this 
down-with-man movement . Not all of them, of course, 
but a majority of them. The seat of their psychopathology 
is a desire for purity, purity of body which will lead to 
purity of the soul. To achieve this, you must not eat 
animal food or the products of animals. If you eat eggs 
and butter, and drink (raw) milk, you are a lacto-ovo- 
vegetarian and not a vegetarian at all. You can live a 
normal and healthy life eating only these foods. But 
many go on, in their quest for purity and a guilt-free life, 
to the penultimate stage of this relentless disease - 
veganism. This is a fatal turn that, in the truly pure ones 
(those who don't cheat), leads to chronic fatigue syndrome . 
At this stage the patient faces a battle between strong 
cravings for the foods they love, i.e., animal foods such 
as fried chicken, fish, and a little ice cream. So there is 
more guilt and the struggle goes on. Finally they come to 
the denouement. To attain purity of mind and spirit, they 
finally quit eating all together - they have full-blown 
orthorexia nervosa - and die of starvation. A retrospective 
study needs to be done on anorexia nervosa fatality cases to 
determine how many of them were vegetarian-vegan- 
chronic fatigue syndrome cases. I suspect that most, if 
not all, will turn out to be vegetarian-starvation disease. 
now more appropriately called orthorexia nervosa . 

Again, let's make it clear that this is not the same as 
anorexia nervosa, a disease characterized by a fixation on 
fear of fatness. Both conditions begin as phobic 
psychological disorders - one has fear of fat and the 
other fear of impurity - and they both take the same road 
to salvation - vegetarianism. People are bombarded by 
"expert advice" from universities, the food companies, 
and doctors to "eat your fruits and vegetables." So this 
turn to vegetarian extremism seems the right thing to do. 



246 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



As the anorexic and the orthorexic take the same rout to 
cure, they end up in the same place - an early grave. 

"Brighton Coroner's Court, on 13th June 2006, held 
an inquest in to the tragic death of Sophia Mirza who 
was struck down with (CFS) at the age of 26 and died in 
November last year at the age of 32." Sophia was not 
"struck down" by CFS but by extreme vegetarianism. 

Recording the narrative cause of death as "Acute 
Renal Failure arising as a result of Chronic Fatigue 
Syndrome (M.E.)", Coroner Miss Veronica Hamilton- 
Deeley said that "Sophia had been an attractive and 
vigorous young woman until she was struck down by the 
illness." She suffered substantially, becoming effectively 
housebound and bed-ridden. Her Mother was her 
devoted caretaker. Eventually Sophia was unable to 
tolerate food or water and died, a classic case of 
orthorexia nervosa. 

Dr. O'Donovan, the neuropathologist who examined 
Sophia's spinal chord, reported that he had found 
evidence of inflammation in four out of five dorsal root 
ganglia and that further research was needed into CHF 
This started the long battle of blaming the end-stage 
disease, dorsal root ganglionitis, as the cause of her 
disease and her death. No, Dr. O'Donovan, we need 
further research on vegetarianism and its malignant 
impact on the health of the world. 

Speaking after the Coroner's report, Mrs Criona 
Wilson, Sophia's mother, said that her daughter had been 
starting to improve in health until she was forcibly taken 
away and locked in a secure Mental Hospital. This had 
happened because she had refused a place in a chronic 
fatigue syndrome Clinic where the only treatment offered 
was "Cognitive Behavior Therapy" - typical psychobabble - 
- and Graded Exercise Therapy. (The psychiatrists had 
taken over.) Sophia was aware that both these "treatments" 
have been proven to be harmful for people with severe 
chronic fatigue syndrome and she felt her refusal was 



Vegetarianism , Environmentalism 247 

and the Search for Purity 

justified. Sophia was showing herself to be a lot smarter 
than her captors. 

However, a psychiatrist, who considered that her 
refusal to go into this clinic was "perverse," was instru- 
mental in having Sophia "sectioned" against her will, 
despite the fact that she had been diagnosed with a 
neurological illness and not a psychiatric illness . Many 
psychiatrists currently refuse to accept the serious 
physical nature of CFS and state that it is "merely a 
faulty illness belief", or "somatoform disorder." Do you 
see why I consider psychiatry to be anti-science and a 
threat to civilized society? 

The pathologist who gave evidence to the Court 
said, "This is a pathological condition. Psychiatrists were 
baffled by her illness but it lies more in the realms of 
neurology than psychiatry in my opinion." He is both 
right and wrong. The confusion here is that both sides 
are not looking for the true etiology of this disease. The 
true etiology was not neurologic but psychologic. " 
Inflammation in four out of five dorsal root ganglia" is 
clearly a pathological phenomenon easily recognized by 
a competent neurologist. It is a diagnosis but it is not 
etiological, that is, what caused the dorsal root 
ganglionitis? The neurologist, competent in his field, has 
a correct diagnosis so why look further? The chronic 
fatigue syndrome support groups, most of whom are 
vegetarians themselves, ignore the root cause of this 
terrible, and sometimes fatal disease, the description of 
which I now submit to you for your consideration. 
Sophia Wilson is our poster child case. 

Emeritus Professor Malcolm Hooper, of the University 
of Sunderland, says that the treatment (or lack of it) of CFS 
sufferers in the UK is a national scandal. In a synopsis of the 
problem for the on-going UK Parliamentary Inquiry into 
the illness. Prof Hooper says that it is time that the 
school of psychiatrists who perpetuate the myth that CFS 
is a "non-disease" are held publicly accountable. Sophia's 



248 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



mother couldn't agree more. But the CFS support groups 
are just as guilty. They, the scientists, and the 
psychiatrists/ psychologists never mention vegetarianism 
as a possible cause. 

Sophia's mother is also missing the root cause — 
vegetarianism. We asked Mrs Wilson, on a phone call to 
her home, if her daughter was a vegetarian. Her answer 
was a little equivocal but it boiled down to yes, for the 
last ten years of her life. Sophia's brother confirmed that 
she was a vegetarian. This is characteristic of the pattern 
seen in orthorexia: vegetarian idealism L.O. -> pseudo 
vegetarianism -> veganism -> cessation of eating 
altogether -> starvation and death in a final attempt to 
reach the pure state. 

Sophia did not want to die; she struggled valiantly 
to live in spite of the opposition of the entire medical 
profession who fought over her dying body. But none of 
them had a clue, including Sophia, as to what the real 
problem was. Her Ghrelin hormone that signals hunger 
had long-since become inoperative and she simply 
starved to death. Her death certificate gave the cause of 
death as "renal failure and chronic fatigue syndrome" 
(CFS). CFS is not a cause of death; it is a syndrome . If 
you don't die of trauma, you die of one of the following: 
respiratory failure, heart failure, or renal failure. 

We are told that 250,000 people in the UK suffer CFS, of 
which 60,000 (one quarter of the people) are severely 
affected and bed-bound, like Sophia, and suffer agonizing 
symptoms that can involve every major body system. 

As a result of this verdict, Mrs Wilson and Invest in 
M.E. are calling for the Department of Health to warn 
medical practitioners of the serious nature of CFS and 
also establish funding of bio-medical research into the 
causes and treatment of this devastating illness. If they 
want to establish a fund that can help mankind, it should 
be one to investigate veganism and its devastating effect 
on the health of millions worldwide. 



Chapter XIV 

UDDERLY UNIQUE 



Goats are different from most farm animals. They are 
more tuned to the good life. They romp a lot and have a 
sense of humor. Like pigs, a goat will be clean and orderly if 
given a chance.* Goats are very passionate. If you don't 
think so, just visit a goat farm during the mating season.** 

You probably never wanted to know that the West 
African dwarf goat's milk is remarkably rich in protein as 
is the Oregonian pygmy goat. With goats, quality comes 
in small packages. Worldwide, the dwarf strains produce 
the best milk. 

Goat's milk is not bad. I was going to write a sepa- 
rate chapter on goat's milk, but research convinced me 
that goat's milk is really not that different from cow's 
milk. If both are in the raw state, goat's milk and cow's 
milk are equally digestible . 39 If you can't drink one, it isn't 
likely that you can digest the other. If you want to drink 
goat's milk, it's okay. Just be sure the milk is raw and 
certified. It is rich and delicious. 

Health food oriented people generally consider 
goat's milk to be more digestible and more nutritious 
than cow's milk. They are probably wrong on both 
counts. When comparing goat's milk to cow's milk, as far 
as digestibilty is concerned, the comparison is generally 
between raw goat's milk and pasteurized cow's milk. When 
both are raw, there appears to be little or no difference in 
digestibility . 40 



** 



A goat will not grunt in his gazebo. 
It's downright embarassing. 




Goats are Neat. Cows don't Care. 



Udderly Unique 



251 



Pasteurization is the basic difference that makes 
cow's milk appear less digestible than goat's milk. If you 
pasteurize goat's milk, you're right back to a processed, 
de-natured product.* 

The professors say there is no difference, but the curd 
of goat's milk is smaller, and many people who cannot 
drink cow's milk (pasteurized) are able to drink goat's 
milk. 

Goat milk devotees claim that goat milk fat is more 
digestible because the fat globules are smaller. On the av- 
erage, goat milk fat globules are smaller, but if this con- 
tention were true, then homogenized cow milk fat with 
its very tiny globules should be more digestible. Experi- 
mental evidence doesn't support this contention. 41 

There are some areas where cow's milk is clearly su- 
perior to goat's milk. Goat's milk is deficient in Vitamin 
Bl, Vitamin B12, and especially folic acid. "Goat milk 
anemia" 42 has been reported in children fed exclusively 
on goat's milk. 43 It responds quickly to folic acid treat- 
ment. Another study, reported in the Yearbook of the 
American Goat Society, 44 attempts to refute these find- 
ings. They reported that children fed goat's milk devel- 
oped better than those fed cow's milk. But these were not 
infants living exclusively on goat's milk. Babies should 
have human breast milk. Horse's milk would be the sec- 
ond choice; raw cow's milk properly diluted is third. 

The contention that goat's milk is less likely to cause 
allergic reactions than cow's milk also is not borne out by 
the scientific literature. A study done by Johns Hopkins 
University 45 showed no significant differences in the 
allergy potential of the two milks. If you are allergic to 
raw cow's milk, you will probably be allergic to raw 
goat's milk. 



If you don’t understand that, you have missed the whole point of 
this book. Start over. 



252 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



Goat's milk is okay, but in my opinion, not worth 
the extra expense except in special circumstances. And 
remember, goats are subject to the same diseases as cows. 
Check to see if the operation is clean. Probably more im- 
portant, ask the farmer if his family drinks the milk. If 
they do, you can be reasonably certain that the milk is 
clean. 

But there is one great advantage to goat's milk — 
availability. In many states where raw cow's milk is not 
available, raw goat's milk can be obtained if you just 
make the effort. Ask at your local health food store. 
Many state legislatures seem to look the other way re- 
garding raw goat's milk. 

We need to put in a plug for fried food. Frying per 
se has never been proven to be any worse than boiling, 
baking, or broiling.* The important factors in frying are: 

1) The type of fat used. 

2) The temperature at which the food is cooked. Ex- 
tremely high temperatures not only destroy vita- 
mins, fat, and protein values, but convert some 
foods to atherogenic and/or carcinogenic sub- 
stances. 

3) The length of time the food is cooked. 

Most doctors, if asked whether fried foods are un- 
healthy, would probably say "yes." One envisions grease 
pouring into the liver, the gallbladder groaning in com- 
plaint, and the bowels in a discontented and spastic up- 
heaval. No one knows why fried food is bad. Everybody 
just knows it's bad. While doctors feel confident that they 
are on sound ground in making the assertion that fried 
food is probably bad, most of them eat fried food like 
everybody else. 



This doesn't mean that we recommend the French fries at your 
local finger-lickin'-good fast food chain. They are boiled to death 
in oil - remember the chapter on critical temperatures? 



Udderly Unique 



253 



You will probably be as surprised as I was to find 
practically nothing in a search of the literature on the ef- 
fect of fried foods on the digestion. The one article on the 
subject refutes the old medical prejudice, against fried 
foods. 

Boggess and Ivy did their frying experiment with 
potatoes. They concluded that pan-fried potatoes were 
more easily digested than French fried.* 

Dr. Frank Howard Richardson, commenting on the 
prejudice against frying, 46 said, "There is a widely held 
belief, cherished by physicians and laity alike, to the 
effect that fried foods are harmful in general and that 
they are particularly harmful for children. An analysis... 
clearly demonstrates that it is not documented with 
scientific proof or with any proof at all for that matter. 
Rather, it is merely a repetition and reiteration in many 
different forms of this unproved old unscientific 
prejudice." 

Food that is pan-fried in butter or one of the edible 
oils such as palm, coconut, olive oil, or peanut oil, is no 
worse than any other cooked food. In fact, Boggess in his 
experiment found that fried potatoes were more 
digestible than boiled potatoes. 

Please Pass the Grass 

America's golf courses grow enough nutritious food 
to supply a large proportion of our nutrient needs. Cows 
aren't very smart, but when given a chance, they eat bet- 
ter than most Americans. 

Green grass contains twenty-three times as much 
Vitamin A as carrots, twenty-two times as much Vitamin 
B2 as lettuce, nine times more thiamin, than green leafy 



French fry is a misnomer. Boiling in grease is not the French way. 
The French pan-fry or saute. McDonald's and Col. Sanders "French 
fry." 



254 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



vegetables, and fourteen times more Vitamin C than 
citrus fruits! The humble blade also contains niacin. 
Vitamin E, and probably nutrients not yet discovered. It's 
also packed with minerals and enzymes. Professor 
Johnston-Wallace declared, "About five pounds of dried 
tender grass would supply enough vitamins to last a man 
an entire year." 

You don't like green grass? That's the point of this 
dissertation on grass. Milk from cows fed green grass 
converts this perfect vegetable to a palatable form for man. 
Green grass milk is the closest thing to a perfect food. 
However, most commercial milk contains none of the 
green grass factors because the cows from these mass 
production milk factories never see green grass. 

Randleigh Farms 47 did an experiment that should 
convince you that your children should drink only raw 
milk from green-grass-fed cows. Two barns housed eleven 
cows each. The one group received the same feed as the 
other except green hay and fresh green wastes were 
added. They produced normal calves year after year. 

The group not receiving the green supplements, 
while producing an equal quantity of milk the first year, 
rapidly dropped off in milk production the second year. 
Many stopped breeding, and by the third year, the group 
receiving no green feed produced only one normal calf. 

John P. O'Neil, M.D., said in 1948, "The overcoming 
of disease cannot be accomplished until soil, agriculture, 
medical science, and veterinary science are amalgamated . 48 
Dr. O'Neill pointed out that the foods we eat are no 
better than the soils they come from, and this includes 
animals as well as plants. If a cow is raised on poor soil 
and therefore gets poor grass, she will produce nutrition- 
ally inferior milk. If a race horse is raised on poor grass, 
he will not become a winner. I would not have believed 
the importance of that if it wasn't for the story told by Dr. 
O'Neill at a meeting of the certified milk producers. 



Udderly Unique 



255 



One of the largest racing stables in the country had 
for decades produced brood mares and stallions of the 
highest quality. Their horses were always big winners 
and made a fortune for their owners. These magnificent 
animals, known for their robust health and speed, were 
raised in the heart of the blue grass country of Kentucky. 

In 1933, after years of successful racing, things be- 
gan to go wrong. They lost money that year. In seven 
years the stable was in ruins. In 1941 they had sixty thor- 
oughbreds racing, but most of them seemed to be going 
backward. The stallions weren't racing, and the mares 
weren't producing.* The few foals dropped were either 
stillborn or deformed. 

What a disaster! The "experts" said that the blood 
lines had "run out" and advised them to sell the animals 
for dog food and start over. But the manager of the stable 
was knowledgeable in agricultural science and knew that 
the horses could only be as good as the soil and grass 
that raised them. He suggested to the owner that he call 
in soil chemists before turning his expensive and care- 
fully bred animals into shoe leather. 

He took the manager's advice, and the horses were 
saved from the glue factory. It wasn't the horses. It was 
the soil. It contained practically no minerals or other nu- 
tritional elements. Even the worms, essential to good soil 
maintenance, were gone. In only two years, after growing 
well-fertilized crops with cattle and plowing under the 
green crops for rejuvenation of the soil, the worms re- 
turned. By 1945, with the same stock of mares and stallions, 
they were in third place in winnings in the United States. 

What affects horses also affects cows. If the milk you 
are drinking is not from cows fed the very best grass from 
rich soil, you are not getting your money's worth in nutri- 
tion from the milk. This has been proven beyond a doubt. 49 
Put garbage in and you get garbage out as inferior milk. 



The stallions weren't chasing the mares either. 



256 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



Dr. Francis Pottenger reported on a study of cats fed 
cooked meat . 49 One of the cats gave birth to six kittens. 
She ate two of them on the first day, three died of diarrhea 
on the third day, and the last one died the next day. Dr. 
Pottenger said that milk supply was usually inadequate, 
the mother showed little inclination to feed them, and the 
kittens had narrow, poorly developed faces. This was the 
pattern when the mother had been fed on heated food 
such as cooked meat and pasteurized milk. 

Dr. Pottenger illustrated how this carries over into 
human maternal nutrition. A family was studied in 
which the mother 's diet had varied considerably with 
different children. The first born infant was the lucky 
one. The mother was living on a farm drinking not less 
than two quarts of raw milk every day produced by a 
cow fed fresh cut alfalfa. The child was well developed 
and healthy. 

The sister came along at a time when the mother 
was consuming a deficient diet. She had the narrow face 
and poor skeletal development seen in Pottenger 's cats. 
He summarized, "...skeletal development is... directly in 
proportion to the amount of green feed entering into the 
milk fed the infants." 

So, remember that green grass is an incredibly good 
food for human consumption. If you ever get caught in a 
famine situation, just eat the grass — you'll do okay. 



Udderly Unique 



257 



REFERENCES 

1. The Fat of the Land , Macmillan, 1956, pp. XXXVII. 

2. In the Shadow of Man. New York, Houghton Mifflin, 
1971. 

3. Olduvai Gorge, Vol. 3, Oxford, Cambridge Univer- 
sity Press, 1971. 

4. Martin, Natural History, 76:32-38 (1967). 

5. Abrams, Journal of Applied Nutrition, Vol. 31, #1 & 
2, 1979. 

6. Harner, Natural History, 86:46-51 (1977). 

7. Johanson, Science, 203:321 (1979). 

8. Abrams, Jr., App. Nut. 31 #1 and 2, 1979. 

9. J.D. Science, Vol. 5, #3, pp. 297. 

10. Br. J. Nut., 16:476-74 (1962). 

11. Nutrition Program News, July / August (1973). 

12. Nutrition Reviews, 37:142-144 (1979). 

13. Enig., et al. Fed. Proc. 37:2215 (1978). 

14. JAMA, 189:655-59 (1964). 

15. N. England Journal Medicine, 98:317 (1978). 

16. Abrams, J. App. Nutr., Vol. 32 #2, pp. 53-87. 

17. Ibid., p. 65. 



258 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



18. Journal of Applied Nutrition vol. 31 #1, 1979. 

19. Abrams, J. App. Nut., 32, #2 (1980). 

20. Your Body is Your Best Doctor, Page & Abrams, 
Keats Publ., Conn. (1974). 

21. The Cultural Dimension of the Human Adventure, 
MacMillan, New York, 1979. 

22. Ibid. 

23. TheFat of the Land, Stefansson, Macmillan, 1956, 
PP-91- 

24. Nature, 252:158 (1974). 

25. Winkler, et al, Amer. Journal of Med., Vol. 46, Febru- 
ary 1969, pp. 297. 

26. Resurrection, et al. Nutrition (2586-2591). 

27. Adventures in Diet, Harper's Magazine, November/ 
December 1935, January 1936. 

28. Personal conversation with Icelander, Eggert 
Edwald, Reykjevik, Iceland, Summer 1983. 

29. The Fat of the Land, Stefansson, Macmillan, 1956. 

30. Op. cit. 

31. Op. cit. 

32. The Value of Good Foods & Vitamins, Dr. Lowell A. Erf, 
History of Randleigh Farms. 

33. Op. cit. 



Udderly Unique 



259 



34. Cardiovascular Disease of the Masai. 

35. Op. cit. 

36. N.E.J. Medicine, Vol. 284, #13, pp. 694, April 1971. 

37. JAMA, December 28, 1970, Vol. 214, #13. 

38. Jenness, Journal Dairy Science, Vol. 63, #10, 1980. 

39. Ibid. 

40. Trout, Journal Dairy Science, 31:627, 1948. 

41. Parkash, Dairy Science Abstr., 30:67, 1968. 

42. Davidson, J. Pediatrics, 90:590, 1977. 

43. Mack, Yearbook of American Goat Society, 1953. 

44. Ibid. 

45. Gamble, U.S. Dept. Agriculture Tech. Bulletin, 671, 
1939. 

46. The Journal of Pediatrics, February 1944. 

47. History of Randleigh Farms. 

48. Speech at annual banquet of Certified Milk Industry, 
Waukeska, Wisconsin, June 20, 1948. 

49. Elvehjen, Journal Dairy Science, Vol. 17 (12), pp. 763; 



Chapter XV 

ICE CREAM 

“So delectable as to be near a sin.” 
—Anonymous, probably God. 

You need the scoop on ice cream. 

If you are an ice cream freak like me, watching the 
manufacture of ice cream at Alta-Dena Dairy is almost a 
religious experience. The temple is the storage area 
where rich, luscious, creamy, natural (raw cream), gor- 
geous ice cream is stacked three stories high!* Alta-Dena 
ice cream is the only raw milk, raw cream, completely 
natural ice cream available in the entire United States on 
a commercial basis. That tells you a lot about the status 
of our food supply. 

Nero, the Emperor of Rome in the first century, B.C., 
was an ice cream nut. He would have royal runners fetch 
snow from the mountains. The kitchen would cover it 
with honey, fruit, or wine. Nero loved his ice mixture so 
much that he made it illegal for everyone but himself.** 

In the 13th century, Marco Polo proved that the Chi- 
nese were ahead of us in practically everything. He 
brought back an ice cream formula from the Orient. 

King Charles the First was also an ice cream freak. 
He issued a 17th century royal decree to his cook that he 
must not divulge his ice cream recipe to the peasants.*** 



*It is 20 degrees below zero in the temple, so I didn't stay in 
church very long. 

** No one paid any attention. 

***It was too good for them, and besides, Charles was a selfish 
bastard. 



262 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



George Washington was crazy about the frozen de- 
light. He kept two silver pots just for his ice cream. Dolly 
Madison served it at the White House. 

Alta-Dena ice cream isn't cheap. Neither is Hagen- 
Das, Copenhagen, Mathis, Shiloh Farms, or any other top 
quality brands. But with ice cream, cost and quality don't 
always go together. A survey in Chicago, for example, 
rated one of the lowest priced ice creams as the best and 
the most expensive as "awful." This was a flavor test and 
had nothing to do with nutritional value. When eating 
ice cream, one doesn't usually think about nutrition, but 
you can have ice cream that is both nutritious and deli- 
cious. Most ice creams are delicious and poisonous. 

The first commercial ice cream was marketed in 1851 
in Baltimore. The producers at that time didn't know 
how to make "modern" ice cream. They thought all you 
needed was raw milk, fresh eggs, cream, butter, and 
natural flavors. Today a typical commercial ice "cream" 
contains skim milk, two kinds of sugar, our favorite 
waste product-whey, mono- and triglycerides, polysorb- 
ate 80,* guar gum, chemical flavors such as vanillin (pro- 
nounced van' ah lin),** chemical colors, and carrageenin. 
That's only the beginning. I'll come back to additives af- 
ter I tell you about the Alice in Wonderland called 
"Standard of Identity." 

With most processed foods, regulations require that 
the processor tell you on the label what the product con- 
tains. Granted, many of these regulations are vague 
enough, and although they don't have to tell you what 
has been done to the product, they must at least say on 



* I don’t have the slightest idea. 

** It’s made from wood pulp treated with sulfuric acid. It only costs 
about ten cents a gallon more to use real vanilla which comes 
from a tropical orchid. Don’t want extract of wood pulp instead of 
vanilla? Don’t complain because you will get piperohal instead. If 
you ask Orkin, they'll tell you piperohal is a lice exterminator. 



Ice Cream 



263 



the label what has been added. Not the pasteurized- 
homogenized milk boys. 

Milk and milk products have a "Standard of Iden- 
tity." I put that in caps and quotes because it's a magical 
term the bureaucrats of the Agriculture Department in- 
vented to allow the milk industry to get away with 
murder — or at least nutritional mayhem. 

They don't have to tell you what's in the milk you 
feed your kids because the government regulators have 
given milk producers special dispensation. They have 
said, essentially, that everyone recognizes milk and milk 
products; we trust the milk producers; milk is milk and 
so they don't have to tell us what they are putting in it as 
long as they heat it before selling it. 

Hard to believe? Ask the National Dairy Council, 
Rosemont, Illinois 60018 to send you a copy of publica- 
tion B300-1-1978 titled Newer Knowledge of Milk. Table 
three on page fourteen is very revealing. They don't have 
to tell you anything about the nutritional content of pas- 
teurized milk or ice cream. They can add chemical 
coloring, emulsifiers, stabilizers, chemical flavors, and 
"nutritive sweeteners" (that's sugar to you and me), and 
they don't have to inform you on the label.* The same brand 
may even be different from one week to the next. 

That's the magic of "Standard of Identity," a confus- 
ing term meaning simply: License to deceive. 

Grandmother never realized it, but ice cream is held 
together electrically. There are only eighteen tablespoons of 
liquid in a full gallon of ice cream. It's mostly air, oil, and 
ice crystals suspended in water.** Air, oil, and water 
don't mix very well. It's the negative electrical charges 
that keep everything in suspension and give us that sin- 
fully delicious mix. 

* Presumably, they could put WD-40 in their products if they 
wanted to. 

** The poorer the ice cream the more air and ice crystals. What's 
cheaper than air and ice? 



264 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



The main ingredient in ice cream, besides air, is milk 
fat. There's only one reason the ice cream manufacturers 
use milk fat. It's not legal to call it ice cream if you don't 
use milk fat. With the current national phobia about cho- 
lesterol and animal fat this may change. Non-dairy ice 
cream, like non-dairy everything else made from soy oil 
and peanut oil, would seem inevitable. It's already 
standard in England. 

In fact, as the refinement of our foods continues, 
don't be surprised to find "ice cream" that requires no 
refrigeration. Leave it in a box on your pantry shelf for a 
year. When you are ready for some of the noble glop, add 
water, mix it in your blender, and pop it into your freezer.* 

We told you about using the human mouth as a dis- 
posal system back in our junk milk chapter. The ice 
cream makers do it too. Water pollution laws since 1960 
forced the cheese companies to find a new way to dis- 
pose of whey.** The human gullet has proven ideal, and 
it's a cheap way to increase the milk solids in the ice 
cream to the legal minimum limit. Dr. Philip G. Keeney, 
Department of Dairy Science, Penn State University, 
commented, "Nobody uses whey for positive reasons. 
They use it because it's cheap and it's allowed." 1 

Whey has a metallic flavor that a buzzard wouldn't 
like, but enough sugar and artificial flavor will cover 
anything. Dr. Keeney concluded, "In a way, ice cream has 
become the sewage treatment plant of the cheese 
industry." 3 

Now we come to the bad part. When you order a 
banana split at your neighborhood ice cream parlor, you 
may get vanilla flavored ice cream, chocolate, and 
strawberry. But you will probably get iperonal (a lice 



* Why fool around? A half-ton cow must eat thirty pounds of feed 
and filter 2,500 gallons of blood through her udder to make one 
lousy quart of cream. 2 

** It smothers fish. 



Ice Cream 



265 



killer) for vanilla, amylphenyl acetate for chocolate, and 
a solvent called benzyl acetate for strawberry. The 
toppings will probably be aldehyde C-17 for cherry, ethyl 
acetate for pineapple,* brutyraldehyde for nut flavor, and 
a paint solvent called amyl acetate for that great banana 
flavor. It's all economics. Aldehyde C17 costs seven cents 
per gallon of ice cream. Real cherries cost thirty-five 
cents a gallon. 

There are over a thousand different chemicals used in 
commercial ice cream. How about those beautiful colors 
added to ice cream to make your Little One's birthday a 
truly memorable event? You will get tartrazine (yellow) 
to upset his little stomach, dissamine red 6B for red, and 
indiotine for blue. He can also be poisoned with ama- 
ranth, ponceau2R, and titanium dioxide.** Coal tar dyes 
are the major source of artificial coloring. Many of them 
are known to be potent cancer-causing agents. 

A single ice cream may contain as many as fifty-five 
chemical ingredients. If you really go el cheapo, you 
might get refiner 's syrup as the "nutritive sweetener." 
Refiner's syrup is the last liquid product of the sugar re- 
fining process. It has been described by technicians in the 
field as "practically inedible." 

You need a good emulsifier to make ice cream. It 
gives it a characteristic stiffness and richness. Grandmother, 
not being wise in economics and knowing nothing about 
chemicals, used fresh eggs from the hen house. Today 
they use diethylglycol, an anti-freeze, and polyoxyethylene 
which is suspected of causing cancer. They also use 
polysorbate 65. It deceives you into thinking that the ice 
cream has a high cream content. As a thickener you may 
find dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate which is a chemical 
used in medicine as a stool softener.*** 



* Ethyl acetate vapors cause lung, liver, and heart damage. 

** Who knows? Maybe he had a titanium deficiency anyway. 

*** Just in case you needed it. 



266 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



One of the most common additives to ice cream is 
carageenin. When this chemical is added to water and 
fed to guinea pigs, they develop ulcers. Some scientists 
think it may cause ulcerative colitis in humans. 

Commercial ice cream is loaded with sugar. Sugar 
causes diabetes, and according to Dr. Norman Kretchner 
of Stanford University, sugar is a major cause of athero- 
sclerosis. A person with hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) 
may faint or have a convulsion from eating sugar-laden 
commercial ice cream. The convulsions may be from the 
sugar, or the chemicals, or both. 

We could tell you about the additive CMC causing 
tumors and polysorbate-80 causing premature death in 
experimental animals, but I guess you get the message: If 
you want to go on an Eskimo pie in the sky trip, eat com- 
mercial ice cream. 

Something else you should know. Unlike milk, there 
are no federal standards setting the maximum number of 
bacteria to be allowed in ice cream. As we pointed out in 
Chapter IV, pasteurized ice cream has been a not infre- 
quent source of food poisoning epidemics. 

They really get away with murder when they sell 
you "reworked" ice cream. "Reworked" is a euphemism 
for covering up stale ice cream and selling it as fresh. 
They just throw it back with the fresh, add more chemi- 
cals, and presto — America's fun food. 

If you like chocolate, please raise your hand.* The 
best way to disguise the poor quality of reworked ice 
cream is to add a lot of chocolate. There's not much good 
news about chocolate and a lot of bad. If you don't want 
to be turned off on chocolate, skip to page 250. 

The following information on chocolate comes from 
the newsletter of Tom Cooper, M.D. of Atlanta, Georgia. 
As I can't improve upon it, I am repeating it here: 



I knew you did. Everybody likes chocolate. 




Most Ice Cream is a Chemical Rip-Off. 



268 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



"Almost everyone with a weight problem has a 
chocolate problem... Since I have a hard time resisting 
chocolate I decided to see if there was anything about it 
that would turn me off. I struck paydirt in the first refer- 
ence book I consulted and in a Food and Drug Adminis- 
tration policy guideline reference publication. 

It seems that candy bars don't grow on trees after 
all! Over half of the chocolate we consume comes from 
cocoa trees found in West Africa in countries like Ghana, 
Nigeria, Ivory Coast, and Cameroon. The cocoa tree 
grows in a lush tropical environment and has a number 
of fungi and insects that are enemies to this plant. It is 
necessary to spray the trees with a number of control 
chemicals, including organic and potentially toxic 
fungicides that could remain in small amounts in the 
harvested cocoa beans. 

The cocoa trees produce a certain number of seed 
pods each year. These pods are harvested, and the cocoa 
beans are removed manually by natives. They are then 
spread out on the jungle floor and allowed to ferment (a 
nice way to say rot) for five to six days in the jungle heat 
and humidity. There is nothing to keep insects and small 
animals from nesting and feeding among the beans while 
they are exposed to the elements. It is common to find 
animal droppings, dead insects, and animal hairs in this 
fermenting collection of cocoa beans. 

After they have stayed like this for the required pe- 
riod of time, they are packed in jute or plastic bags and 
stored in harbor warehouses until it is time to load them 
into the holds of ships for transportation to this country. 
In the warehouses and the ship holds they are again sub- 
jected to the ravages of resident rodents and insects. The 
cocoa bean is a rich source of fats and carbohydrates and 
is relished by both kinds of pests. 

The resulting mixture of cocoa beans, insect fragments, 
rodent droppings, leaves, and rat hairs is unloaded in 
this country and is taken to one or another of the various 
chocolate processing factories. A conscientious effort is 



Ice Cream 



269 



made by these companies to remove as many of these 
contaminants as they possibly can, but the thousands of 
tons of raw material processed each month make this a 
virtual impossibility. 

To quote the FDA manual, 'The action levels are set 
because it is not now possible, and never has been possi- 
ble, to grow in open fields, harvest, and process crops 
that are totally free of natural defects.' Translate natural 
defects into hairs, insect fragments, and animal waste. 
There is, and I know you will be comforted to know this, 
a level at which the FDA will seize a product and not let 
it be sold. 

If 100 grams (about three ounces) of chocolate ex- 
ceeds an average of 60 microscopic insect fragments or 
one rodent hair when six similar samples are analyzed, 
or if any one sample contains more than 90 insect frag- 
ments or three rodent hairs, then this sample will be re- 
jected by the FDA. I suppose this means that if there are 
only 59 insect fragments, or only one rodent hair per 100 
grams then we are alright! 

Animal waste is normally the color of chocolate and 
cannot be tested for with any great accuracy. The cooking 
process destroys almost all the germs, so I guess this 
means that it is reasonably healthy. Nobody is hurt by 
this contamination, since the hairs and insect fragments 
are partly protein, but the aesthetic aspect of chocolate 
with all this possible filth mixed with it has made me less 
likely to eat it. I am afraid that when I bite into a candy 
bar, the crunch may not come from peanuts, but from 
something else." 4 



A word of caution on sherbets. Avoid them as you 
would soggy cigarette butts. This "light, cool, summer 
delight" is strictly bottom of the line. Sherbets have very 
little milk solid. The milk solids are replaced by a heavy 
dose of additives and sugar. There's over a pound of 
sugar in a gallon of sherbet. 



270 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



The National Dairy Council , 5 whose job is to inform 
the American people about dairy products, says, "Rigid 
government standards assure consumers of (ice cream's) 
purity, healthfulness, and high quality."* 

So, belly up to the ice cream bar and order an Anti- 
Freeze Frappe', Sorbitam Soda, Lice Killer Cooler, Paint 
Solvent Sundae, a Terasodium Pyrophosphate Split, or a 
Red Dye Delight — ummm yummie. 



Eating Germs for Good Health 
(Yogurt, Kefir, and Koumiss) 

Raw milk is good food, but cultured raw milk is even 
better. Many people who cannot drink pasteurized milk 
can drink raw milk. But some can't even drink that. They 
just can't handle the lactose. This would be very 
frustrating in trying to treat patients with milk therapy. 
But, fortunately, we have cultured ("fermented") milk to 
work with. 

These cultured products, yogurt, kefir, and koumiss, 
are pre-digested.** The fat, sugar, and protein has been 
partially broken down making them digestible for practi- 
cally everyone. 

A large percentage of Negroes and other dark-skinned 
races cannot tolerate milk pasteurized or raw. But many 
tribes in Africa practically live on cultured milk from 
their herds. 

It is claimed that people who rely heavily on cul- 
tured milk in their diet live longer. In some areas of Russia, 



* Rigid government standards? Purity? High quality? Healthfulness? 
They even recommend it as a "breakfast surprise." Makes you 
want to throw up. 

** There are other cultured milks such as Keldermilk from Norway 
and Skyr from Iceland. Basically, they are about the same. 



Ice Cream 



271 



where large amounts of koumiss* are consumed, there 
are people who live to be a hundred or more. Nikita 
Khrushchev, the former dictator of Russia, said that three 
times as many people lived to be one hundred years old 
in his country than in the United States.** Benet reported 
in 1971 6 that in one small Black Sea village there were one 
hundred eighty people over ninety-one years old. These 
people were rarely sick, and atherosclerosis was 
uncommon. They drank a lot of cultured milk. 

Yogurt consumption has skyrocketed in the United 
States in recent years and is expected to be a billion dol- 
lar business by 1986.7 Kefir, a liquid product with differ- 
ent and even better bacteria than yogurt, is coming on 
fast. Its consistency is about halfway between yogurt and 
buttermilk. That makes it just right for the American 
palate, sort of like a milkshake, and I predict that it will 
eventually overtake yogurt in consumption. Koumiss 
will never make it in this country although it's probably 
the best of the lot. (Closer to human milk). It contains 
five times more Vitamin C than cow milk.*** 

The trouble with yogurt in this country is the same 
as the rest of our food. When the product caught on, the 
big food producers moved in with their sugared, pasteur- 
ized phony yogurt. People have a vague conception that 
yogurt is good for them, a "health food." But, when 
polled, most hadn't the vaguest notion why. Most polled 
didn't know that billions of live, friendly bacteria make 
yogurt yogurt. These bacteria not only predigest the fat, 
sugar, and protein. They also "crowd out" lethal bacteria 
in the gut. Perhaps even more important, these microor- 
ganisms manufacture their own antibiotics to destroy 
disease-causing germs. 



* Pronounced 'ku meece’. It's made from horse milk. 

** He didn't make it. Too much vodka. 

*** But Americans just won't drink horse milk. 



272 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



One of these good germs is called lactic-acid strep.* 
It suppresses spoilage germs, and that's why African na- 
tives can use it without refrigeration. 

As most consumers aren't aware of the importance of 
these bacteria in their yogurt, the manufacturers can get 
away with cultures with a low count or absolutely no bacteria. 
This is really pathetic because they think they are getting a 
longer shelf life by pasteurizing out all of the friendly 
bacteria, where actually the opposite is true.** 

I told you about the therapeutic effectiveness of raw 
milk. With yogurt and kefir you can multiply that effec- 
tiveness by at least two, maybe more. Fermented milk 
therapy is big in Russia. There are over fifty sanitaria in 
the Soviet Union using cultured milk therapy.*** For a se- 
rious disease the patient is fed a quart and a half of cul- 
tured milk, usually koumiss, daily . 8 

Elias Metchnifkoff, a Russian scientist who worked 
with Louis Pasteur, was the first distinguished scien- 
tist**** to claim that cultured milk has great therapeutic 
value. Seventy years later he is being taken seriously in 
this country. A host of new and effective antibiotics have 
been isolated from the bacteria of cultured milk , 9 lacto- 
bacillin, bulgarian, lactobrevin, and many others. Many 
deadly organisms are controlled by this new breed of an- 
tibiotics from fermented milk. 

Milk will lower cholesterol, but yogurt and kefir will 
do it better. A unique "anti-cholesteremic milk factor" 
has been discovered in fermented milk . 10 What this factor 
is remains a mystery. 

Want to improve your sex life?***** We don't guarantee 
you anything, but consider the story of Dr. Edward Spieker 



* Not the kind that causes strep throat. 

** When they rape the product of all the good bacteria, they 
should make them call it Nogurt rather than Yogurt. 

*** For koumiss production, the Russians are milking 250,000 
horses. It’s not enough to fill the demand. 

**** p[ e i lac i won the Nobel Prize in medicine in 1908. 

Who doesn't? 



***** 



Ice Cream 



273 



of Munich, Germany. He came to the United States in 1937 
to promote a product unknown to the American people — 
yoghurt.* He had eaten yogurt all of his life. 

He was accompanied by Countess Alma von Blucher, 
"a friend of the family." The year before he had had his sec- 
ond child by his second wife. He was seventy-two years 
old. He still had hair on his head and needed no glasses.** 
There are three reasons why yogurt, kefir, and koumiss 
prolong life. They protect against infection because of the 
built-in antibodies, they are protective against hardening of 
the arteries, and there is a potent anti-cancer effect. 11 

There is surprisingly little research on this important 
aspect of cultured milks. The original research on the 
anti-cancer effect of cultured milks was done twenty 
years ago. 12 Work at the Sloan-Kettering Institute for 
Cancer Research has confirmed and enlarged on the 
original studies. They found that Lactobacillus 
acidophilus "possessed definite antitumor activity.*** 

Added to all the above advantages is the fact that 
yogurt, kefir, and koumiss are more nutritious than milk. 
They are much higher in B vitamin content and Vitamin 
C, and the protein is the very highest quality available 
for human consumption. 

Perhaps the most remarkable quality of cultured milks 
is their ability to protect against radiation injury. Dr. Tomic- 
Karovic exposed guinea pigs to X-ray. He found that those 
receiving cultured milk did not have abnormalities in their 
offspring. Those not protected by the milk had birth defects. 
Would it not be wise for every expectant mother to add kefir 
or yogurt to her diet?"**** 



* That's the way they used to spell it. 

** We have been unable to determine his present place of resi- 
dence. If alive, he's only 120. 

*** Maybe the American Cancer Society doesn't speak to Sloan- 
Kettering either. 

**** Make sure it's yogurt and not nogurt. 



274 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



REFERENCES 

1. Science '81, Terry Dunkle, July / August. 

2. Ibid. 

3. Ibid. 

4. Food and Food Encyclopedia, Considine, 1982, Van 
Nostrand Co., NYC. FDA Compliance Policy Guides 
Manual. 

5. National Dairy Council, B103, 1979. 

6. The New York Times Magazine, December 26,1971. 

7. Milk Industry Foundation, Milk Facts, 1978. 

8. Cheese and Fermented Milk Foods. 

9. Shahani, J. Dairy Science, 1979, 62:1685. 

10. Mann, 1977, Atherosclerosis 26:335. 

11. Op. cit. 

12. Bogdanov, 1962, Abstr. VIII Int. Cancer Cong., pp. 
364. 



Chapter XVI 

SOY AND INTERNATIONAL CONTROL 
OF YOUR DIET AND YOUR HEALTH 

An item from the Latin American news web 
(North Queensland Register, Australia, 11/26/05): 

Mr. Howard, the banker investigating the Brazilian 
economy, said the country's boots-and-all approach to 
soy production embodied its capacity to act quickly to 
exploit opportunities. "A few growers started dabbling 
with soybeans only 14 years ago - now Brazil has 40 percent 
of the world market," he explained. " We saw more soy 
than we did cattle and sugar cane ." -- not a good sign for 
the nutrition of the human race - we have work to do. 

The international control of our food supply is 
awesome and, I am afraid, unstoppable. The CODEX 
control of our vitamins and other nutrients is merely the 
ripple on the surface hiding the voracious governmental 
monster below, composed of the UN, the World Bank, the 
drug cartel (both "ethical" and unethical), and other 
power centers, known and unknown. 

The foundation of the new international nutrition 
will be based on SOYBEANS, a bean not even considered 
a food 50 years ago. This massive dietary revolution will 
continue to weaken the constitution of the lower and 
middle classes and real food - dairy products such as 
milk, eggs, and animal fat and protein — will only be 
available to the rich and infamous. 

There is a brilliant new plan to kill one industry, 
tobacco, which is said to cause, or contribute to, almost 
every disease known to man, and vastly increase another 
industry, soy, said to prevent almost every disease known 
to man. Both of these hypotheses are wrong and not 
scientifically based. But statistically-based pseudo 



276 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



science (epidemiology) has replaced evidence-based and 
reproducible traditional science. Few seem to have 
noticed this hijacking of medical science by head 
counters, closet vegetarians, and other power seekers. 

NOT SOY FAST WITH THE BEANS 

I had given the low-cholesterol, high carbohydrate 
diet promoters the award for making the Biggest 
Nutritional Blunder of the 20 th Century until I came 
across the Soy Ploy. The food companies, the federal 
government, and the university food science departments 
have been promoting the USDA "Fat Pyramid" for 40 
years. Now the promoting of soy as a food encompasses 
all of the misguided paradigms of the three great powers 
mentioned above. I must award them co-winners of this 
coveted award along with the American Heart 
Association, Harvard University, the Purina dog Food 
Company, and Conagra. 

The Weston A. Price Foundation (WAPF) is under- 
taking a new initiative to investigate instances and 
arrange possible legal assistance for individuals who 
believe that they, or their children or their dog may have 
suffered serious physical or medical consequences as a 
result of ingesting one or more products containing soy. 
This may shock some of you who are not familiar with 
the deleterious effects of soy or have not heard of the 
Weston A. Price foundation. I'll come back to the class 
action suit WAPF is organizing in a minute. I support this 
class action but doubt it will get a fair hearing due to the 
immense power of the soy lobby. 

The malfeasance of the food companies, in collusion 
with the U.S. Givement and the medical profession, (In 
the latter case, mostly because of ignorance.) are not as 
blatant as the dentists, government agencies and 
universities involved in the fluoridation scandal but they 
may be, in the long run, even more destructive of health 
worldwide than the fluoride swindlers. The fluoride 



Soy and International Control 
of your Diet and your Health 



277 



battle, which we are winning, is nothing compared to the 
fight ahead of us on the soy issue. Mottled teeth are easy to 
see and it is not hard to get people to understand that it 
might not be a good idea to put one of the world's most 
toxic chemicals in the water or to paint it on one's teeth. 

With soy the indictment is a little more sophisticated 
in that you have to talk to people about such things as 
phytoestrogens, genistein, and thyroxin deficiency. Let's 
keep it simple. Candidly, I wouldn't know a phyto-estrogen 
from a phylactery and you probably don't either. You may 
be a nuclear physiologist but there is still a good chance 
that you don't know much about genistein. These are 
plant hormones similar to estrogen and that's all we need 
to know about this chemistry. What we DO need to know 
is what the indiscriminate use of these plant estrogens 
are doing to our health and longevity - and the food 
industry is not going to tell you. 

It is deleterious for both boys and girls, for different 
reasons; as you probably have noticed, boys and girls are 
different. They don't react the same to stimuli, such as 
sex, soy, soccer, and semantics. Don't let your boy babies 
grow up to be soy sissies and don't let your girl babies 
grow up to full maturity at the age of twelve. It is 
dangerous to their mental and physical health. 

PARTIAL LIST OF PRODUCTS CONTAINING SOY 

Meal Replacement Beverages 
Smoothies 

Snack/ Energy Bars containing soy products 

Soy-based Breads or breads containing soy flour 

Soy Ice Cream 

Soy Infant Formula 

Soy Isoflavone Supplements 

Soy Milk 

Soy Sausages 

Textured Vegetable Protein 
Veggie Burgers 



278 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



Now back to the class action suit. The Weston A 
Price Foundation is dead serious about this fight against 
a powerful and rich foe, the soybean industry, made 
wealthy through fraudulent health claims based on junk 
science. The WAPF is exploring the causal connection 
between soy and various serious conditions - see listing 
below. They are getting competent legal advice to 
develop medical evidence in a number of cases to pursue 
damages or other appropriate remedies against the 
manufacturers and sellers of soy products. If you would 
like them to conduct a preliminary investigation of the 
circumstances of your potential claim, without cost or 
obligation to you, then promptly contact them at 
westonaprice_soy@verizon.net. 

MEDICAL CONDITIONS AND SOY CONSUMPTION 

Asthma 

Chronic Fatigue 

Depression 

Diabetes 

Heart Arrhythmia 
Heart or Liver Disease 
Infertility / Reproductive Problems 
Irritable Bowel Syndrome 
Learning Disabilities / ADD / ADHD 
Pancreatic Disorders 
Premature or Delayed Puberty 
Other sexual aberrations 
Rheumatoid Arthritis 
Thyroid Conditions: 

Auto-Immune Thyroid Disorders 

(Graves' or Hashimoto's Disease) 

Goiter 

Hypothyroidism 

Hyperthyroidism 



Soy and International Control 
of your Diet and your Health 



279 



Thyroid Nodules 
Thyroid Cancer 
Other thyroid disorders 
Uterine Cancer 
Weight Gain (obesity) 

SYMPTOMS OF POSSIBLE DISORDERS 
ATTRIBUTED TO SOY 

Always feeling cold or warm 
Anemia 

Behavioral problems 
Brittle nails 
Eczema 

Hair thinning or loss 
Hyperactivity 
Learning deficiencies 
Lethargy or low blood pressure 
Sore bones and joints 
Watery or swollen eyes 

Psycho-sexual problems (hyperestrogenism) in both sexes 
possibly leading to an increase in homosexuality in 
males.* 

SOY: AN EQUAL-OPPORTUNITY OPRESSOR OF 
THE IMMUNE SYSTEM 

Although the diseases attributable to a soy diet are 
listed above in alphabetical order, special mention needs 
to be given to thyroid diseases connected to excess soy in 
the diet. Most people don't realize the catholicity of this 
essential hormone. It is a master hormone, which is as 
important as the adrenal hormones and the pituitary 



* The opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not 
necessarily reflect the opinions of the WAPF or any other 
organization. 



280 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



gland. They form a triumvirate of master glands. The 
pituitary gland, located at the bottom of your brain, 
works in conjunction with the adrenal glands, which are 
perched on top of each kidney. * 

The Committee on Toxicity and Foods in Great 
Britain reports: that soy phytoestrogens "modulate 
thyroid hormone synthesis." They also say that soy 
phytoestrogens disrupt the pituitary-gonadal axis. So 
you can add the sex glands to the triumvirate discussed 
above and that makes it quadumvirate. ** 

So you have these four power glands harnessed 
together and if one of them is suppressed, the others 
react and the system goes into emergency mode - and 
that can make you very sick. Soy is definitely anti- 
thyroid and deficiency of thyroxin hormone can lead to 
narcolepsy (a chronic sleepiness), infertility, obesity, 
learning disabilities, constipation, hair loss, and stunted 
growth - and that is only the short list. Your "troika-plus- 
one" of master glands starts running every which away, 
trying to plug the leaks and put out the fires of soy- 
induced glandular chaos. 

A striking example of the tragedy of a vegan diet 
(read soy diet) came to my attention when visiting the 
installations of a particular religious group. They are a 
dedicated and law-abiding organization that is deeply 
involved in the field of nutrition. They are, for the most 
part, vegetarian in spirit but not in practice. What this 
boils down to is they are against eating mammalian protein 
- beef, pork, ("unclean"), and lamb. But there is a subset 
among them that has been raised as vegans - no animal 
protein or animal fat has ever passed their lips — not 



* I don't know why God placed them in such a peculiar place - ran 
out of room, I guess. They have the shape of the cocked hat of 
French revolutionary days. He was certainly ahead of his time on 
that one and artistic too. 

** I think - what would you call it? 



Soy and International Control 
of your Diet and your Health 



281 



even in their mother's milk as they were usually vegetarian 
as well. So they were vegans from the moment of 
conception. 

In visiting their homes, their churches, their work 
places, and their hospitals, I noticed a startling thing. 
Some of their male members, although healthy, intelligent, 
and successful, were quite small, about five feet, two 
inches in height and on the aesthetic side. I cannot prove 
these startling anomalies were caused by a soy-based diet 
— I certainly wasn't going to ask them any embarrassing 
questions - but I strongly suspect it. 

It is claimed that soy is a "natural" way to replenish the 
aging body's declining estrogen levels and thus relieve 
menopausal symptoms, such as hot flashes, as well as 
decrease the risk of heart disease and osteoporosis, 
without promoting breast cancer. None of this has turned 
out to be true . Their science is weak but their propaganda 
is strong . Even the UC Berkley Wellness Letter calls the 
soy supplements "risky business." Stick with soy foods, 
not soy supplements, they say. I think UCB needs to 
broaden their horizons a bit. While it is probably true 
that a little soy food won't hurt you, like anything else, but 
in the extreme, such as "chicken vegetarians," ("I am a 
vegetarian - but I eat a little chicken.") pure vegans, and 
children, it is a road to ruin. 

One of the problems with soy is that it doesn't seem to 
know what it wants to do. Sometimes it is anti-estrogen in 
action and at other times it is pro-estrogen. This is 
somewhat analogous to having a pistol and not knowing 
whether it is loaded or unloaded - until you pull the 
trigger. And something many of the reports gloss over is 
that males, especially young males, should never take 
soy in significant amounts . Could it be that increased soy 
consumption has led to an increase in feminization of 
males? Many homosexuals appear to have been that way 
from birth. I seriously doubt it is genetic and I feel strongly 
that those born homosexual are victims of feminization 



282 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



from soy protein, fluoride, and other factors in the 
environment of the child and the mother. I cannot prove 
this - or disprove it - it clearly needs investigation, but 
never will be. 

This is a touchy subject but the UC Berkley 
Wellness Letter does give a diplomatic warning: "If 
isolated isoflavones have unpredictable hormonal actions 
in the body, that’s risky business. Pregnant or nursing 
women, in particular, shouldn't risk taking Isoflavone 
supplements." And neither should anyone else, in my 
opinion. 

While worrying about "...pregnant or nursing 
women in particular..." the UC Berkley Wellness Letter 
has nothing to say about children. Isn't that a bit odd, 
coming from one of the centers of liberalism and political 
correctness, that there is no mention of the devastating 
effect that soy "milk" and other soy products have on 
"The Children"? — nothing about retarded growth, 
obesity, thyroid disease, and diabetes in children, 
problems that have become epidemics, according to the 
experts. Did you know that babies on soy formula receive 
a daily exposure to isoflavones that is six to eleven times 
higher by body weight than the dose that has undesirable 
hormone effects in adults consuming soy products ? The 
"FDA -recommended" amount of isoflavones for adults 
is 1.25 mg (per Kg body weight), yet babies on soy 
"milk" are getting 6.25 mg! Tell me. Doctor Berkeley, 
does that sound like a "wellness" program to you? And 
stop calling them "pregnant or nursing women." They 
are pregnant or nursing MOTHERS . You are irritating us 
enough as it is. 

Five recent studies all have shown that soy is 
worthless in treating the symptoms of menopause. These 
studies were performed at Monash University, Australia, 
Iowa State University, University of Milan, Italy, and 
Helsinki University, Finland. Wouldn't you think that 
your gynecologist would be warning you of this rather 



Soy and International Control 
of your Diet and your Health 



283 



than prescribing artificial estrogen and progesterone, 
both of which have been proven to be carcinogenic, and 
thus adding to the problem of soy-induced disease? Can't 
he, the gynecologist, do anything right? Well, not much. 
And while I'm off the subject of soy and on the case of 
the "female specialists," let me tell you about a dirty little 
secret regarding gynecologists. They are lousy surgeons, 
generally, being inept, narrowly trained, and excessively 
slow. If you need a hysterectomy or other major gynecologic 
surgery, go to a general surgeon who does gynecologic 
surgery . If gynecologists have made a mess of hormone 
therapy, allowing themselves to be hoodwinked by drug 
companies, can you trust them with cutting on your 
internal organs? I know I'm being very critical but they 
deserve it. 

Another study that we cannot leave out was done at 
the University of Pittsburgh and might be the most 
significant of the damning studies on soy (and I almost 
missed it). They found that hot flashes, night sweats, and 
vaginal dryness improved in the placebo group but not 
in the soy group ! 

Allow me to summarize these remarkable studies 
that should blow the lid off the soy ploy (but probably 
won't): 

• Soy does not improve menopausal symptoms 
compared to placebo. 

• There is no treatment effect on frequency, duration 
or severity of hot flashes or night sweats with soy. 

• The best soy could do was to have an equal 
reduction in symptoms compared to placebo in 
some studies. 

• In one of the studies, symptoms were relieved in 
the placebo group but not in the soy group. 

• Soy causes insomnia in many patients. 

• And soy depresses thyroid function which adds to 
all of the above. 



284 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



Mark Messina, an apologist for soy, claims that soy 
is better than hormone replacement therapy because soy: 
"seems unlikely to increase risk because it has no 
progestin activity." Come on, Mark, whom do you think 
you are kidding? Our readers know that progestin is a 
synthetic chemical and so is not found in any natural 
product. Just because progestin is bad, does that make 
soy good? The only synthetic chemicals (that I know of) 
in soy are the massive amounts of pesticides that your 
bosses put there in the growing process. You should be 
ashamed of yourself for attempting a Sophistic trick like 
that. Why aren't people like you punished for felonies 
like this? You should give up your driver's license and 
put yourself under house arrest - until we, in this great 
democracy, decide what to do with you. 

The soy industry, like the hormone replacement 
industry, the fluoride industry, the side stream smoke 
industry, the anti-cholesterol industry, and the vaccine 
industry - and the whole dang pharmaceutical industry - 
tell you half -truths and are therefore lying to you . The 
International Code of Advertising Practice (ICAP) requires 
that "advertisements not contain any statement... which 
directly or by implication, omission, ambiguity, or 
exaggerated claim, is likely to mislead the consumer." I 
underlined "implication" and "ambiguity" because Mr. 
Messina, the soy apologist mentioned above, is a good 
example of this Medicine-Man show: "Soy is better than 
hormone replacement because it contains no progestin." 
They should have added "half-truth," "obfuscation," "red 
herring," and "straw man" to the ICAP dirty laundry list. 

UC Berkeley Wellness Letter concluded "Soy foods 
are well worth adding to your diet, since they may help 
reduce the risk of heart disease and may have other 
health benefits." Show me the evidence - they have no 
credible science to back up these statements. The 
Wellness Letter got off to a good start with their criticism 



Soy and International Control 
of your Diet and your Health 



285 



of soy health-store products but then, at the conclusion, 
they waffled out the back door. 

And for pure trash in science, consider the following 
from the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Male 
volunteers ate three scones per day in addition to their 
normal diet. Half the group ate scones made from wheat 
flour and half scones made from soy flour. This high-tech 
study was continued for six weeks. They reported 
"significant improvements in two of the three markers of 
oxidative stress" and they concluded, "these findings 
provide a putative mechanism by which soy supplements 
could protect against prostatic disease and atherosclerosis." 

Putative ? What's this "putative" stuff? Putative is a 
wimpy word, which boils down to "Everyone knows 
that..." or, direct from the dictionary's mouth: "commonly 
accepted or supposed to exist" What they don't emphasize 
from their study is that testosterone levels fell in those 
volunteers eating the scones made with soy and there 
was nothing putative about that. They sort of slid by that 
little landmine. Testosterone is probably protective against 
prostatic cancer. But the medical consensus is the exact 
opposite: prostate cancer, they claim, is "associated with" 
high testosterone levels. Because of this unsound thinking, 
they have been giving estrogen to men with advanced 
prostate cancer in order to counteract testosterone. All that 
assault on the patient ever did was give them large breasts - 
a final humiliation before they died. 

And soy is going to protect against atherosclerosis? 
Come on now, how can something that disrupts the 
entire endocrine system of the body - and especially 
thyroid function — be protective against atherosclerosis 
or anything else? 

Conclusion: 

Soy-based "kibble" has ruined the health of our 
beloved pets. American politicized science seems 
determined to remove animal food - meat and dairy — 
from the diets of the entire world. - We are being kibbleized 



286 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



along with our cats and dogs. To paraphrase Richard 
Nixon: "We are all vegetarians now." 

Ref: UC Berkeley Wellness Letter, January 2001 

UC Berkeley Wellness Letter, February 2000) 

Lifestyle (New Zealand), Fall, 2000 

Weston A. Price Foundation (www.WestonAPrice.org) 

KEEP THE FDA FROM FURTHER "SOYLING" ITS 
REPUTATION 

Despite its status as darling of the vegetarian "meat 
martyrs," soy is NOT a health food. In fact, it's neither 
healthy nor is it food, if your definition of that word 
includes some measure of actual nourishment. And it 
isn't merely worthless as a food, it's downright harmful. 
Hundreds of studies have linked soy proteins and 
derivatives to: 

• Heart disease 

• Cancer, especially of the breast 

• Allergies and reduced immunity 

• Thyroid dysfunction 

• Malnutrition and digestive problems 

• Nutrient deficiencies, including calcium (vital for 
the prevention of osteoporosis) 

• Reproductive disorders, cognitive and mental 
decline, and more 

And these are just the NATURAL side effects of soy 
foodstuffs. I shudder to think of how many other ills 
we're risking by ingesting the residues of the acid and 
alkaline baths, petroleum solvents, and God knows how 
many other hazardous chemicals involved in the 
manufacture of some of the most common soy variants... 

These facts notwithstanding, soy byproducts and 
proteins have found their way into just about everything 
- usually in the place of truly healthy animal-based fats: 
Milk and milk substitutes, cheeses, yogurts, desserts. 



Soy and International Control 
of your Diet and your Health 



287 



breakfast foods, and even many burger patties have some 
degree of soy content nowadays. In fact, it's estimated 
that 60 % of the refined foods on store shelves and sold in 
fast-food joints have some kind of harmful soy protein in 
them . 

And if those madcaps over at the Food and Drug 
Administration have it their way, the amount of soy 
Americans are consuming will likely double in the very 
near future. Why? Because they're about to allow the 
manufacturers of every Twinkie, breakfast cereal, veggie 
burger, energy bar, milk substitute, and every other 
doggone thing under the sun with harmful soy protein or 
byproduct in it to claim that it PREVENTS CANCER. 

Yes, you read that right. Despite the findings of 
stacks of bona-fide research, the FDA is about to buckle 
yet again to the Big Food conglomerate (as it did with the 
Food Pyramid farce) and let them claim their soy- and 
sugar-saturated junk as the key to dodging cancer. 

They will do this unless YOU do something about it. 
Keep reading... 

Absurd as the notion is, the FDA is about to give a 
big rubber stamp to refined-food makers that says 
"Prevents Cancer" on it. This, despite the fact that many 
toxicology texts list the plant estrogens found in soy 
protein products as CARCINOGENS. How can this 
happen, you ask? As usual, it's all about money. This 
move will mean billions in the pockets of American food 
makers, and who knows how many needless deaths in 
our soy-serving hospitals? 

What really kills me is that the FDA doesn't think 
we're smart enough to see how shamelessly profit-driven 
this shenanigan is. Think about it: There are lots of safe, 
natural substances out there that REALLY DO prevent 
cancer. But does the FDA allow makers of these things to 
make that claim?... 

Of course not. The supplement and natural foods 
industries represent an insignificant source of income for 



288 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



the government compared to the overall food business. 
Besides, people might stop taking those expensive drugs 
if they knew about the benefits of vitamins, herbs, 
minerals, and truly healthy foods - which would mean 
less money in the Feds' pockets in taxes and drug 
application and approval fees. But since the food industry 
will flood the government with corporate tax revenues 
generated by the sale of soy-inclusive products, they get to 
claim these foods prevent cancer. It doesn't matter if it's true, 
as long as it's truly profitable. Outrageous. 

As you know, I don't often try to rally my readers to 
action. With a couple of notable exceptions in the past, I 
prefer to inform and expose, then let folks decide for 
themselves whether or not to get involved. But this time. 
I'm urging anyone who cares about not only their health, 
but their rights to unbiased government oversight of big 
business to take action now - because the clock is 
ticking... 

The FDA must hear from Americans in sufficient 
numbers to make them think twice about giving the food 
industry carte blanche to bill their junk foods as the 
"magic bullet" for cancer. But you have to hurry - let your 
voice be heard. E-mail or call your congressman. 

My investigator checks periodically and the 
response is always the same, it's pending. But that means 
the FDA is dilly-dallying rather than doing their duty. All 
these oxymoronic "scientific government agencies" are 
basically political and have only a veneer of science to 
cover up their sallow, pimply, porcine faces. We must 
keep the pressure on or they will just sit on their soy, 
carbohydrate, nutrition-free butts and do nothing. If, by 
the time you read this, the FDA has approved the false 
claims of cancer prevention by soy products, we'll just 
have to suit up again and demand the repeal of this 
outrageous bureaucratic diktat. 



Soy and International Control 
of your Diet and your Health 



289 



SOY - CHEAPER & HEALTHIER - AT LEAST FOR 
PRISONERS 

"Inmates in Texas prisons would consume fewer 
calories each day, gulp powdered milk, and maybe even 
chow down on burgers made from soy instead of beef 
under budget cuts served up..." reported the Prison 
News, 1996 and the Associated Press in May of that year. 

Senator Judith Zaffirini, D-Laredo, Texas, said she 
wanted to work to find more ways to trim the food bill, 
including possibly using soy-based products instead of beef, 
a move she said would be "cheaper and healthier." So you 
see - the soy sorcerers have gotten a hold of the pea brains 
of the political class. (Always go for the mentally 
handicapped, such as politicians, and work up from there.) 

Another Senator-turned-nutritionist, John Whitmire, 
gave Texas a sample of his wisdom: "... the changes such 
as moving from liquid to powdered milk are acceptable 
ways to save money in tough times so lawmakers can 
spend more on core needs such as treatment for drug 
offenders." Powdered milk is an abominable product not 
fit for prisoners, pigs, or even politicians. And you can 
quit wasting money on drug rehab since it doesn't work . 

So with the blind leading the deaf and dumb, the 
august legislature of Texas contracted with some criminal 
types in the outside world, and in the prison system 
itself, to feat their guests in the Texas jails with milk powder 
and soy granules. Since television and eating (No 
Smoking allowed!) are the only pleasures a prisoner has, 
the results were predictable and quick in coming. State 
officials said that frequent servings "demoralized the 
staff and inmates and led to adverse health effects, 
including rampant flatulence." Stockpiles eventually were 
used to feed hogs at prison system farms. It was reported 
that many of the hogs bloated and died. (I was not able to 
verify the hog-deaths story but they did indeed feed it to the 
hogs as the prison was in near revolt.) 



290 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



A Prison Writer's Story 

"...let me tell you non-Texas prisoners about 
VitaPro. It all started one day in November '94 when I 
went into the chow hall hungry as hell. I had been 
working since 6 a.m. and it was now 12 noon. As I 
entered the dining room, there was an evil smell not 
unlike about 5,000 dirty socks, each with its own 
personal stench. I thought how I wished I had eaten 
breakfast, but breakfast for Texas prisoners takes place at 
3 am and I don't do nothin' at 3 a.m. but sleep. The closer 
I got to the serving line the more I realized it wasn't dirty 
socks at all, but a new, so-called 'food' Andy Collins 
(executive director of the Texas Department of Criminal 
Justice) had wanted us to eat, called VitaPro. 

"Manufactured in Canada from a soy base, it was 
nasty, it stunk and it was inedible. Many of us wouldn't 
eat it at all, but for over a year you either ate VitaPro or 
tried to exist on spoonfuls of beans, carrots and greens. 
When we wouldn't eat it, they gradually cut down all 
food, trying to starve us into eating it." 

There were, however, several slight problems: (1) the 
convicts wouldn't eat it. ("Just say no! to VitaPro!" was 
the watchword of the day.) (2) They couldn't sell it. (At a 
product demonstration in California, the VitaPro meal 
came out so pasty it stuck to the spoon.) And (3) when 
Missouri officials opened a bag shipped to them for a test 
meal, they spotted a dead mouse inside. Terminix might 
want to consider using soy as a rodenticide. It, presumably, 
kills pigs, mice, and your pet dog. It will also, in my 
opinion, kill you; it will just take a little longer. 

The soy crooks of VitaPro, including a former Secretary 
of the U.S. Treasury, came to a prison headquarters 
meeting to pitch the wonders of VitaPro. A prisoner 
reported on the visit: "They stressed that it was cheaper 
than meat, it required no refrigeration so it was cheaper to 
store and ship, and it is fat-free so as to give the prisoners 
a healthier diet. (They're worried sick about our health 



Soy and International Control 
of your Diet and your Health 



291 



that's the reason they took our cigarettes.) And all you 
have to do is add water and cook and it is tender, 
succulent, and delicious. Yummy!" 

"The Texas state prison system planned to resell it to 
their own food services departments plus other prison 
systems at a massive profit to the prison insiders, of 
course, "This repackaging business caused the prison 
grapevine to go wild with rumors that VitaPro was 
animal food from Canada, and that is was being 
repackaged because the original packages said 'Not for 
Human Consumption'. These were great rumors and I 
loved them, but unfortunately they are quite untrue." 

With all due respect for the writer, who may be a 
convict but he knows a lot about writing, it actually IS 
dog food. Practically every house pet in the world eats 
"kibble," which is "chicken-flavored," or "meat- 
flavored" soy and that is all they get to eat — ever. 
Consequently, a Park Avenue dog eats the same trash the 
Texas prisoners eat, or did eat, until it became clear they 
were about to kill them through starvation and soy- 
induced hormonal deficiencies. Park Avenue dogs (and 
the rest of the human race now subsisting on soy kibble) 
should be as lucky as Texas convicts. 

Our convict-reporter finished with this gem: "It is 
ironic that VitaPro came to an end in Texas prisons not 
because it is garbage not fit to eat, but rather because the 
keepers of the kept have once again proved to be bigger 
crooks than the little crooks they keep." 

Ref: Prison News Service 54, spring 1996 

Associated Press, May 8, 2003 

THE AHA CHANGES ITS MIND ABOUT SOY’S 
HEALTH BENEFITS 

It wasn't too long ago that the American Heart 
Association (AHA) was touting the "heart-healthy" benefits 
of soy. Now it's singing a different tune. Well, sort of. 



292 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



A few years ago, based on studies showing that 25 
grams of soy protein a day could lower cholesterol, the 
FDA permitted manufacturers to claim that soy products 
could potentially cut the risk of heart disease. This led 
the AHA to recommend including soy in a low-fat, low- 
cholesterol diet. But its first mistake was tying cholesterol to 
heart disease in the first place. There is little if any 
correlation among cholesterol, saturated fat, and heart 
disease. Cholesterol is an essential nutrient — not a top 
risk factor in heart disease. The organization's second 
mistake was putting stock in research that was nothing 
more than faith-based science — a mistake it's finally 
starting to come to grips with. 

As the evidence began to stack up against soy's 
impact on cholesterol, the AHA recently decided to take 
another look at the soy /heart hypothesis. 

Hindsight is 20/20 

After reviewing 22 studies, it found that, in reality, 
large amounts of dietary soy protein had no significant 
effect on HDL, LDL, or blood pressure. The isoflavones, 
so highly touted as another soy miracle ingredient, also 
came out rated a big fat zero . The AHA reported on its 
newly discovered observations in Circulation, its official 
journal. 

The importance of this article cannot be overestimated. 
Circulation is the bible of the cardiologists. When 
Circulation speaks, the cardiologists listen, as does the 
rest of the internal medicine community. So when the 
committee used this journal as its platform to report that 
soy-containing foods and supplements did not significantly 
lower cholesterol, that was NEWS. And in this case, it's 
GOOD news (at least for those of us who want to retch at 
the thought of a soy-laden veggie "burger"). 

Dr. Michael Crawford, chief of clinical cardiology at the 
University of California San Francisco Medical Center, said, 
"We don't want to lull people into a false sense of security 



Soy and International Control 
of your Diet and your Health 



293 



that by eating soy they can solve the [cholesterol] problem. 
If they are radically altering their diet where they're only 
eating soy in the hopes that this is going to bring their 
cholesterol down, they're deluding themselves." 

OK, so we're on the right track here. But that's about 
where the newly found common sense ends - as they 
went back off the track. 

A lesser evil is still evil 

Apparently the "nutrition experts" (whoever they 
might be) still recommend soy as a lesser of evils, saying 
that soy-based foods are still a better option than eating 
less healthy fare like burgers and hot dogs. Well, whoever 
said that burgers and hot dogs are "less healthy"? Burgers 
are made from beef, and if they have been cooked medium 
to rare, they are among the most nutritious foods you can 
eat. Hot dogs are equally healthy. (Read my article in the 
January 2006 issue of Real Health Breakthroughs about the 
much-maligned hot dog — and all of its heart-healthy 
benefits.) 

Further illustrating the intellectual bankruptcy in all 
matters concerning soy, we turn to one of the major 
players in the field of university nutrition — Harvard. Dr. 
Frank Sacks, a professor of nutrition at the Harvard 
School of Public Health in Boston, led the committee that 
exposed this entire soy /cholesterol scandal. But even he 
is on the confusing teeter-totter of the soy argument. 
Here's what he has to say: "Soy proteins and isoflavones 
don't have any major health benefits other than that soy 
protein products are generally good foods." How can 
they be considered "good foods" if they don't have any 
health benefit? Your guess is as good as mine. Yet, for 
some reason, he continues to bow to Saint Soy, saying 
that soy-based foods "are good to replace other foods 
that are high in cholesterol." 

Outrageous. Frank obviously needs a little retraining, 
and I suggest he start with the Weston A. Price Foundation 



294 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



and request some education in science-based nutrition. 
( www.westonaprice.org ). 

Another nail in the soy coffin 

Cholesterol isn't the only health problem the AHA 
has changed its mind about concerning the previously 
touted benefits of soy. The Associated Press reported that 
"an AHA panel found that neither soy nor the soy 
component isoflavone reduced symptoms of menopause, 
such as 'hot flashes,' and that isoflavones don't help 
prevent breast, uterine or prostate cancer. Results were 
mixed on whether soy prevented postmenopausal bone 
loss." 

So my question is this: If the other stupendous claims 
about soy have been proven false and lacking in scientific 
integrity, why would you believe it prevents anything, 
including bone loss? This is a classic example of collusion 
between organized medicine and the public press 
scamming the trusting masses with dishonest science to 
promote a product that is not only not good for you but 
is very bad for you. 

Let's look again at some of the indictments against 
soy: It promotes low thyroid function leading to a 
general metabolic breakdown, resulting in stunted 
growth, sexual problems, obesity, and malnutrition. Soy 
doesn't prevent bad things from happening to you; it 
causes them. 

REFERENCE: 

"Soy-based foods might not be so good for you after all," 

Associated Press, 1/23/06 



Appendices 



295 



APPENDIX I 


State 


Raw Milk 


Raw 

Certified Milk 


1. Alabama 


May not be sold. 


May not be sold. 


2. Alaska 


No data. 


No data. 


3. Arizona 


May be sold. 


May be sold. 


4. Arkansas 


Sold at farm. 


No law. 


5. California 


May be sold. 


May be sold. 


6. Colorado 


May not be sold. 


No law. 


7. Connecticut 


May not be sold. 


May be sold. 


8. Delaware 


May not be sold. 


May not besold. 


9. District of Columbia 


May not be sold. 


May not be sold. 


10. Florida 


May not be sold. 


May not besold. 


11. Georgia 


May not be sold. 


May be sold. 


12. Hawaii 


May not be sold. 


No law. 


13. Idaho 


May be sold. 


May besold. 


14. Illinois 


Sold at farm.. 


No law. 


15. Indiana 


May not be sold. 


May not be sold. 


16. Iowa 


Sold at farm. 


Sold at farm. 


17. Kansas 


Sold at farm. 


Sold at farm. 


18. Kentucky 


May not be sold. 


May not be sold. 


19. Louisiana 


May not be sold. 


No law. 


20. Maine 


May not be sold. 


No law. 


21. Maryland 


May not be sold. 


May not besold. 


22. Massachusetts 


No law. 


No law. 


23. Michigan 


Sold at farm. 


No law. 


24. Minnesota 


Sold at farm. 


Sold at farm. 


25. Mississippi 


May not be sold. 


May not besold. 


26. Missouri 


Sold at farm. 


No law. 


27. Montana 


May be sold. 


No law. 


28. Nebraska 


Sold at farm. 


No law. 



296 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



APPENDIX I 


State 


Raw Milk 


Raw 

Certified Milk 


29. Nevada 


May not be sold. 


May be sold. 


30. New Hampshire 


May be sold. 


No law. 


31. New Jersey 


May not be sold. 


May be sold. 


32. New Mexico 


Sold at farmL. 


No law. 


33. New York 


May be sold. 


May be sold. 


34. North Carolina 


May not be sold. 


May not besold. 


35. North Dakota 


May be sold. 


No law. 


36. Ohio (*) 


May not be sold. 


Allowed. (*) 


37. Oklahoma 


Sold at farm. 


No law. 


38. Oregon 


May be sold. 


May be sold. 


39. Pennsylvania (**) 


Allowed. (**) 


Allowed. (**) 


40. Rhode Island (***) 


Allow Raw Goat's Milk Only 




41. South Carolina 


Sold at farm. 


May not be sold. 


42. South Dakota 


May not be sold. 


No law. 


43. Tennessee 


May not be sold. 


May not be sold. 


44. Texas 


Sold at farm. 


No law. 


45. Utah 


May be sold. 


May be sold. 


46. Vermont 


No law. 


No law. 


47. Virginia 


May not be sold. 


May not be sold. 


48. Washington 


May be sold. 


May be sold. 


49. West Virginia 


May not be sold. 


May not be sold. 


50. Wisconsin 


May not be sold. 


May not be sold. 


51. Wyoming 


May be sold. 


No law. 



* Ohio — Allow if farm was in business before 1965. 

** Pennsylvania — Not sold in eating establishments. 

*** Rhode Island — All milk except goat's milk is pasteurized. 



Appendices 



297 



APPENDIX II 

Household Test for Contaminated Milk 

Dr. J. Howard Brown of Johns Hopkins University 
described a method of testing milk for "dirt," as he called 
it. That's a euphemism for cow manure. 

Spore-forming bacteria are germs with a protective 
shell around them, like a walnut. They never come di- 
rectly from the milk and so, if found, are positive evi- 
dence of contamination of the milk from manure, stall 
dust, dirty utensils, or dirty milking attendants. They are 
not killed by pasteurization because of their protective 
shells. 

One of these organisms found in manure produces 
gas if the oxygen supply is cut off. Any housewife can do 
the test to prove the presence of this gas-forming bacte- 
ria.* It may seem like a lot of fuss, but a few gurgling 
milk cartons may make you think twice about drinking 
"pasteurized" milk. Raw certified milk will rarely, if ever, 
be positive for these fecal bacteria. 

Take a large kettle in which a quart of milk may 
stand with the water coming up to within an inch of the 
top.** Start with cool water. Open the carton, but cover 
the opening lightly with a piece of aluminum foil. To pre- 
vent bumping, place a rack under the carton. A few large 
hair pins will do. 

Bring the water to a vigorous boil. Then remove the 
carton from the boiling water and set aside to cool, leav- 
ing the aluminum foil loosely on top. 



* Clostridium welchii. 

** This is easier to do with old-fashioned milk bottles. 



298 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



After the carton has cooled enough to be handled, 
press the foil around the top of the container and place 
the carton upside down in a clean container of water 
with the top of the milk carton resting on the bottom. The 
water should come half-way up the side of the milk 
carton. 

Put your experiment in a warm area of the house 
and examine daily. If gas-forming fecal bacteria are 
present, in a few days the bacteria will have blown most 
of the milk out of the bottle.* 



You will be glad you didn't drink it. 



Appendices 



299 



APPENDIX III 

Definition of Certified Milk 

The following description and definition is repro- 
duced verbatim from the September, 1938 issue of Certi- 
fied Milk Magazine: 

"Rules and regulations for the production of certified 
milk are laid down by a national organization of physi- 
cians, The American Association of Medical Milk Commis- 
sions. Each certified farm is supervised by a local Medical 
Milk Commission, members of which are appointed by the 
local medical society, and each Medical Milk Commission is 
a member of the national organization. 

Certified milk is the product of cows that are in per- 
fect health. The milk of each is tested for healthfulness 
before each milking. The slightest indication of anything 
wrong with a cow results in her instant withdrawal from 
the certified herd to which she is not restored until again 
in perfect health. 

Cows used to produce certified milk are steadily 
cared for by experienced veterinarians who regularly ex- 
amine and test them. These cows are housed in well 
lighted, well ventilated barns kept always scrupulously 
clean. Before each milking, each cow's flanks and udder 
are brushed, washed, and cleansed so no outside dirt 
may get into the milk. 

Only men in perfect health may work about cows 
used to produce certified milk. These men are kept in 
perfect health by steady attention of physicians and regular 
health tests and examinations. If anything is found wrong 
with a man's health, he cannot afterward go near the 
certified dairy until he is pronounced entirely well. 



300 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



Men who work about certified dairies are required 
to keep themselves at all times scrupulously clean. They 
wear clean white gloves, their hands are regularly mani- 
cured and frequently washed, and all their personal 
habits are under constant supervision. 

Cows used for production of certified milk are fed 
most carefully balanced and measured rations so that cer- 
tified milk may at all times be of uniformly high quality. 

Certified milk, as soon as it is taken from the cows, 
is cooled, bottled, sealed and kept in refrigeration until 
used. 

These precautions, plus frequent and regular bacterial 
tests, insure a milk of dependable purity, cleanliness, 
flavor and freshness. Only such milk may bear the desig- 
nation Certified Milk." 



Appendices 



301 



APPENDIX IV 

A Suggested Baby Feeding Formula 
(Natural, raw Certified Milk) 

1. Human milk = 20 calories per ounce. 

Regular formula (excluding premature) = 20 calories 

per ounce. 

2. Certified Milk corrected to 20 calories per ounce may 

be prepared as follows: 

1) Boil all nursing bottles, nipples, and measuring 
cups in water 20 minutes. Then, refrigerate them, 
including water. 

2) Remove cap from a one quart bottle of Certified 
Milk which has been well shaken. Place cap on a 
clean paper towel or other clean surface. 

3) Pour off 6 ounces of Certified Milk for other use, 
i.e., drink it. 

4) Pour into the residual 26 ounces of Certified Milk 
one ounce White Karo Syrup. 

5) Add 5 ounces of the boiled, then REFRIGERATED, 
water. 

6) Replace a clean cap and shake well. The bottle is 
sterile and ideal for storage. 

7) At each feeding, shake well and pour the 
necessary amount of milk into sterile bottle. Warm 
to room temperature under a hot water tap. 



302 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



TO SOFTEN STOOLS, you may add: First, one to 
two ounces dark Karo; second, one to two ounces 
B'rer Rabbit Molasses. If two ounces of any of the 
above must be added, omit one ounce water, and 
it will still fit into a sterile one quart bottle. The 
calorie count will be only slightly higher. 

This formula is recommended for babies of 
normal birth weight to 15+ pounds or 6+ 
months old, then continue using Certified 
Milk, undiluted. 

For further information, call your doctor, or 
R.L. Mathis Certified Dairy: (404) 289-1433. 



Appendices 



303 



APPENDIX V 

"Oleomargarine Tax Repeal." Hearings before the com- 
mittee on agriculture, House of Representatives, 80th 

Congress, 2nd Session, U.S. Government Printing Office, 

Washington, D.C., 1948. 

Oleomargarine Tax Repeal 

Mr. Andresen. You are, in fact, representing Best 
Foods? 

Dr. Deuel. In fact, representing what I know about 
the nutritional value of vegetable fats. I am not represent- 
ing Best Foods. I was asked by Best Foods to be here. 

Mr. Andresen. And compensated by them for your 
appearance? 

Dr. Deuel. I am compensated to the extent that my 
railroad fare from Chicago here and back to Cincinnati is 
paid for by them. 

Mr. Andresen. I can say to you, doctor, I have enjoyed 
your statement and the answers to my questions. There 
has been no question in my mind as to the value of one 
product as against another, but the controversy here is 
color, yellow, and you have refrained in your statement 
from mentioning the color yellow. All that I want is oleo 
and margarine sold for what it is, and not as an imitator 
of butter, which is the usual case. That is all. 

The Chairman. Mr. Murray. 

Mr. Murray. I would like to ask questions of the gen- 
tleman, but he has a great deal of background. There are 
certain statements that the gentleman has made that, to 



304 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



me, are very disturbing. No. 1. The gentleman is trying to 
come to the conclusion that a vegetable oil is equal to an 
animal fat, but by his own admission he had not proven 
that by his own experiments. The oleo margarine you 
have used, you say, contained around 15 percent dairy 
products; is that right? 

Dr. Deuel. I think about 13 percent. 

Mr. Murray. Well, according to the Oleo Institute, it 
is 15.6 percent. In answer to the gentleman from Minnesota, 
you also said that you implemented the ration by adding 
casein, which is another dairy product. Your test does not 
show it and I have never seen an experiment yet that 
proved that a vegetable oil was equal to an animal fat 
and none of your experiments prove that. Am I right or 
wrong? 

Dr. Deuel. In the first place, I want to call your atten- 
tion to the fact that I am speaking solely about the fat. We 
are talking about fats here. You get no casein whatsoever 
from butter except what is in the skimmed milk portion 
that is present. You get just as much in margarine. I am not 
saying that you can eat oleomargarine and eat nothing else 
and get along. You cannot. You will die just as quickly if you 
eat oleomargarine as you will with butter, if you have 
nothing else. You must have protein, you must have 
calories, which you cannot get from those. You must have 
minerals, you must have the fat soluble vitamins, the wa- 
ter soluble vitamins. I am simply claiming that those sub- 
stances which we need, which we ordinarily look to the fat 
for, are as completely in margarine, fortified margarine, as 
they are in butter. That is all I am saying. 

Mr Murray. Well, what you are saying, then, is that 
the vegetable oil if implemented by casein and skimmed 
milk — is then equal to butter. I am not admitting it, but 
that is your position? 

Dr. Deuel. May I add one more statement? If one at- 
tempts to get the things like excellent casein from butter, 
solely from butter, then, you are in a position where you 



Appendices 



305 



will get into a terrific condition nutritionally. You will be 
short on your protein and I would advise a person who is 
short and wants to get a well-rounded diet to take whole 
milk, because that is where you get your casein, that is 
where you get your salts. It is not in butterfat. 

Mr. Murray. Dried skimmed milk has 1 percent but- 
terfat in it, so any experiment of yours that you have seen 
does not prove that the vegetable oil is as good as the 
animal fat. I am not talking dairy or nondairy, just from 
an experimental standpoint. If your contention is right, 
then, you have to say that this Milnot, which is 
composed of 94 percent dairy product and 6 percent 
vegetable oil is just as good as evaporated natural milk; 
is that right? 

Dr. Deuel. I have never investigated Milnot and I 
know nothing about it whatsoever. 

Mr. Murray. Well, on the thesis that a vegetable oil is 
equal to an animal fat, there is no reason why that is not 
just as good, if it is doctored up the same way? 

Dr. Deuel. I can only testify on experiments which I 
have done myself and which I know about. I cannot give 
any testimony on Milnot. 

Mr. Murray. But your conclusion is that a vegetable 
oil is equal to an animal fat even though you use dairy 
products to prove it. 

Dr. Deuel. If you want to interpret it that way, that is 
all right, but I cannot interpret it that way. Mr. Murray. I 
do not know any other interpretation to make. 

Dr. Deuel. I can only interpret on the basis of what I 
have done. I know nothing about Milnot and I have never 
read the label so I do not know what the product is. 

Mr. Murray. But in principle, if a vegetable oil is 
equal to an animal fat, it surely does not spoil it by 
putting more skimmed milk in it? 

Dr. Deuel. I have never written that and I do not 
choose to say that now. Mr. Murray. How about this oleo 



306 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



cheese? The only difference between that and natural 
cheese is that this was made out of soybean oil instead of 
cottonseed oil. I am afraid I would be tempted to tell all 
the subsidies cotton has and I would not to get the blood 
pressure up that way. Here is a cheese made out of 
soybean oil, some 31/2 percent. If your conclusions are 
correct, then, that is just as good as natural cheese. I am 
not saying your conclusions are correct, but if you have 
proven that a vegetable oil is equal to an animal fat, that 
is just as good as a piece of natural cheese. 

Dr. Deuel. Well, they have certain types of cheese that 
are very excellent and very well thought of, made out of 
goat's milk, have they not? 

Mr. Murray. Sure. 

Dr. Deuel. They probably have them made out of 
different kinds of milk. 

Mr. Murray. This is soybean oil cheese I am talking 
about, oleo cheese. 

Dr. Deuel. Does that contain skimmed milk? 

Mr. Murray. Yes. 

Mr. Murray. Then, according to your contention, it 
might be just as good as this cheese. 

Dr. Deuel. I imagine it would, but I have no experi- 
ments on such cheese. 

Mr. Murray. Here is No. 3. A bottle of milk made 
down here in the dairy department. 

Dr. Deuel. Made by a cow, is it not? 

Mr. Murray. It has 4 percent soybean oil in it. It has 
been homogenized, and, according to you, if a vegetable 
oil is equal to an animal fat that is just as good as a quart 
of natural milk. I am not admitting it, but I am just sub- 
mitting it to you to show you how far down the road we 
are going. 

Your experiment, or no experiment, has yet ever 
proven that a vegetable oil is equal to an animal fat because 
you have never had an experiment that you did not have 



Appendices 



307 



to lean on the old cow when you were running the 
experiment. 

As far as the oleo trust is concerned — or whatever it 
is — I am getting sick of all the high-power propaganda 
that they put into this thing because they are misleading 
the people. I hope you do not subscribe to that Chicago 
experiment and base your reputation on that Chicago ex- 
periment with those children for 2 years' time. 

If you read that article, what did it say? How much 
percentage of fat did the children get as vegetable oil? Dr. 
Deuel. They got what they would normally take. I have it 
right here. 

Mr. Murray. How much of it came from animal fat? 
Just read the experiment. It will show you how unfair 
that experiment is. I was sorry to have you subscribe to it 
because I have a high respect for all scientists. I was sur- 
prised because your fellow scientist was here 3 years ago 
and told us that oleo was just as good as butter, and it 
only had 9,000 international units. Then they found out 
that butter had from 15,000 to 27,000, and now they come 
back and say it is just as good and has 15,000. I do not 
know what they will say the next time they come in here 
for a hearing, if they ever have to come back again. 

I do not know whether the testimony was right that 
time or this time. I do not know whether that testimony 
is right or whether yours is right. 

Dr. Deuel. It states in here that the margarine substi- 
tuted approximately 65 to 70 percent of the total fat 
calories. 

Mr. Murray. In other words, they get a third of their 
fat as animal fat in the ration, and therefore they run a 
wonderful experiment. 

Dr. Deuel. Does it say that the other 30 percent was 
animal fat? It might just as well have been vegetable fat. 
Many vegetables contain appreciable amounts of — 



308 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



Mr. Murray. Do you mean to tell me those children 
went 2 years without any milk? Dr. Deuel. I do not know. 

Mr. Murray. Why were they not honest about it and 
publish the facts if they wanted to run an experiment 
based on common, ordinary horse sense. 

Dr. Deuel. I would not choose to dispute a plan of 
experiment set up by Prof. Anton Carlson. He is the most 
honest and sincere individual that I know in American 
science. 

Mr. Murray. He might be honest, but he might be 
like some of the rest of us and make mistakes. I heard a 
gentleman within 30 minutes telling people they ought to 
use oleomargarine for cooking when it only has 3,300 
calories, and you can buy a pound of lard for 23 cents which 
has 22 percent more calories in it than oleomargarine and 
the oleo costs 70 percent more money per pound. 

I am not saying anything against the man personally, 
but that experiment surely would not stand on its own 
feet if those children had milk which includes butterfat. 

Now, what difference does it make if they drink 
enough milk? What good is the experiment? 

Dr. Deuel. That is exactly what I have been saying. If 
we diverted more of our milk to drink as whole milk we 
would be a whole lot better off than if we tried to give 
the milk to the pigs and make the fat into butter. 

I am not against whole milk. I am for whole milk, 
and I am for a larger consumption of whole milk by our 
children and by our adults. 

Mr. Murray. But you have to have a skim-milk cow. 

Dr. Deuel. No. I am saying: Drink whole milk. Butterfat 
is a good fat, but it is not superior to the vegetable oils. It 
will not do things that the vegetable oils will not do. 

Mr. Murray. As a scientist, can you tell people they 
should use oleomargarine in comparison to lard, talking 
about the low-income groups, when lard has 22 percent 
more calories? 



Appendices 



309 



Dr. Deuel. Would you prefer to eat lard to oleomar- 
garine? 

Mr. Murray. For cooking, sure. 

Dr. Deuel. On your table? 

Mr. Murray. You did not say that. 

Dr. Deuel. I said cooking and table use. 

Mr. Murray. As far as I am concerned, I would rather 
eat lard than oleo. Then I would not be kidding myself. 
This is a serious matter to me. Just because I come from a 
State that happens to have a few cows, they all try to put 
it on that basis. 

I was in Wisconsin when the first vitamin A or fat 
soluble A experiment was run. I am not a chemist, but I 
can read what they say in the book. What gets me is that 
now we come in here with the Best Foods, or whatever 
the name of that company is, and have a scientific man 
come in and tell this committee that they have an 
experiment anywhere in this world — they have never 
had one yet — that shows that a vegetable oil is equal to 
an animal fat. It has not been done, and they have never 
run an experiment yet that did not have to lean up on the 
old dairy cow to get part of the products going into the 
experiment. 

I defy anybody to dispute that statement of fact in 
the record. 



Appendices 



311 



APPENDIX VI 

Biblical and Other Ancient References 
to Meat and Fat. 



Genesis IV, 2-5: 

Isaiah XXV, 6 (King James): "And in this mountain 
shall the Lord of hosts make unto all people a feast of fat 
things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of 
marrow." 1 

Ancient Icelandic poem: "There (in paradise) the 
feast will be set clear wine, fat and marrow." 2 

Lev. Ill, 3, 9, 16,17 

Lev. VII, 3, 23 

"And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a 
tiller of the ground." 

"And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain 
brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the 
Lord." 

"And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his 
flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect 
unto Abel and to his offering." 

"But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect." 

Genesis XLIX, 20: "Out of Asher his bread shall be 
fat, and he shall yield royal dainties." 

Nehemiah VIII, 9: "Then he said unto them. Go your 
way, eat the fat, and drink the sweet." 

Genesis XIV, 17-18: "And Pharaoh said unto 
Joseph — Take your father and your households, and 
come unto me: and I will give you the good of the land of 
Egypt, and ye shall eat the fat of the land." 



312 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



The Illiad, Book XII: "Verily our kings that rule Libya 
be so inglorious men, they that eat fat sheep, and drink 
the choice wine honey-sweet." 

REFERENCES 

1. Holy Bible. 

2. The Fat of the Land, Stefansson, Macmillan, 1956. 



ABOUT THE AUTHOR 



Dr. William Campbell Douglass is a fourth generation 
physician. His family has been serving the state of Georgia 
since 1850. He is a graduate of the University of Rochester, 
New York; the University of Miami School of Medicine; 
and the United States Naval School of Aviation and Space 
Medicine. Dr. Douglass travels the world giving lectures, 
doing radio and TV talk shows and gathering health 
information that is not covered by our press. He has 
spent a lifetime searching out the inexpensive, natural cures 
that really do "make things right" — including extensive 
on-site research into the revolutionary hydrogen peroxide 
and ultra-violet blood irradiation therapies. Dr. Douglass 
was voted Doctor of the Year in 1985 by the National 
Health Federation, and was a founding member and state 
president of the Florida American College of Emergency 
Physicians. 



INDEX 



A 

AAMMC, 31, 47, 83 
Acrodermatitis Enteropathica, 
149, 153 
ACTH, 35 

Addison's Disease, 35 
ADH, 35, 278 
Adoptive Nursing, 174 
A.I.D.S., 214 
Allergies, 24, 286 
Alta-Dena, 23, 56, 57, 58, 59, 
60, 69, 87, 88, 89, 90, 92, 
93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 
100, 101, 106, 261, 262 
American Association of 
Medical Milk 
Commissions, 57, 64, 82, 
85, 86, 299 

American Cancer Society, 

226, 273 

Anaphylactic Shock, 42, 160 
Anemia, 40, 55, 251, 279 
Animal Fat, 238, 264, 275, 
289, 313, 315 

Anterior Pituitary Gland, 131 
Antibodies, 14, 29, 42, 273 
Anticholera Factor, 143 
Antistaphlococcus, 143 
Appendicitis, 213 
Arachidonic Acid, 147 
Arteriosclerosis, x, 38, 239 
Arthritis, 37, 38, 39, 46, 55, 
222, 230, 237, 278 
Arthritis and Rheumatism 
Foundation, 209 
Asthma, 278 
Atopic Dermatitis, 160 



B 

Beef Fat, 195 
Bifidus Factor, 140, 142 
Blubber, 108 
Blue John, 120 

British Medical Journal, 59, 94 
Bronchial Pneumonia, 160 
Butter, 39, 83, 89, 221, 239, 
245, 253, 262, 271, 303, 
304, 305, 307, 308 
Butterine, 180 



c 

Cadaverine, 228 
Calcium, 14, 17, 18, 20, 39, 
40, 44, 71, 72, 225, 230, 
286 

California Council Against 
Health Frauds, 60 
California Department of 
Health, 58, 93, 94 
California Health Department, 
57, 59, 99, 100 
Campylobacter, 105, 106 
Cancer 34, 59, 93, 94, 225, 
239, 240, 265, 273, 281, 
285, 287, 288, 294 
Caribou Milk, 234 
Carrageenin, 262 
Casein 16, 304, 305 
Catalase, 18 
Cavities, 44, 45, 227 
CDC, 56, 57, 58, 85, 86, 105, 
106 

Ceroid Storage, 228, 229 



316 



Certified Milk, 47, 64, 65, 71, 
72, 73, 74, 75, 77, 79, 82, 
83, 84, 86, 97, 259, 295, 
296, 299, 300, 301, 302 
Chelation Therapy, 204 
Chocolate, 44, 264, 265, 266, 
268, 269 

Cholera, 10, 182, 213 
Cholesterol, 23, 225, 226, 

229, 236, 237, 238, 239, 
240, 241, 264, 272, 276, 
284, 292, 293 
Cholestyramne, 113 
Clofibrate, 206 
Coffee-Mate, 124 
Colic, 160 
Colitis, 10, 266 
Colostrum, 131, 207, 211, 214 
Coronary Artery Disease, 160 
Coronet Magazine, 49 
Cream 14, 33, 39, 40, 41, 

43, 53, 89, 230, 245, 261, 
262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 
270 

Crewe, Dr. J.E., 201 
Critical Temperature, 252 
Cystine, 152 
Cystothianase, 152 
Dannemyer, William, 
Assemblyman, 96 



D 

DeBakey, Michael, 225 
Degenerative arthritis, 38, 39, 
237 

Diabetes, 35, 45, 266, 278, 
282 

Diarrhea, 10, 27, 29, 53, 60, 
98, 105, 256 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



Diastase, 18 
Digitalis, 202 

Docadexaenoic Fatty Acids, 
147 

Docohexaonic Acid, 197 
Double Blind, 113 
Dyslexia, 152 

E 

East Finland, 107 
Edema, 33 

Eicosapentonoic Acid, 197 
Epinephrine, 132 
Eskimos, 6, 227, 229, 230, 
232, 233 

F 

Failure to Thrive, 160 
"Filled" Milk, 120 
Flavor, 13, 18, 20, 37, 81, 82, 
262, 263, 264, 265,291, 
300 

Fluorescent Lighting, 18, 37 
Free Radicals, 185, 186 
Fried Food, 252, 253 

G 

Galactogogue, 175 
Galactase, 18 
Garlic, 221 

Gas-forming bacteria, 297 
Gastric Disorder, 211 
Gastric Ulcer, 211 
Gastro-Enteritis, 82 
Gastroenteropathy, 160 



Index 



317 



Gland, 1, 34, 35, 38, 39, 41, 
59, 60, 93, 225, 226, 236, 
243, 257, 264, 280 
Goat Milk, 242, 251 
Goat Milk Anemia, 251 
Grass, 234, 236, 253, 254, 
255, 256 

Growth, 17, 23, 24, 34, 74, 
80, 280, 282, 294 
Growth Factor, 145 

H 

Heart Attack, 23, 41, 45, 226 
Heart Failure, 248 
High Blood Pressure, 40, 222, 
230 

Homogenization 17, 19, 55 
Hyperglycemia 45 
Hypocalcemia of the 
Newborn, 148 
Hypoglycemia, 45, 266 

I 

IceCream, 53, 89, 245, 261, 
262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 
270 

IGA, 142, 160 
IGG, 218 

Immune Milk Therapy, 209 
Immunoglobulin, 142 
Induce Lactation, 174 
Infant Formula Action, 161 
Infections, 2, 26, 53, 85, 89, 
105 

Interferon, 143 
Intussusception, 160 
Iron, 144, 148, 151 
Ixbut, 175 



J 

Journal of Public Health Policy, 
94 

K 

Kefir, 89, 233, 270, 272, 273 
Keldermilk, 270 

L 

La Leche League, 7, 43 
Lactalbumin, 16 
Lactation Amenorrhea, 161 
Lactobacillus Acidophilus, 273 
Lactobacillus Bifidus, 142 
Lactoferrin, 131, 142 
Lactoglobulin, 16 
Lactose, 45, 270 
Ladies Home, 51, 52 
Ladies Home Journal, 51, 52 
Lenolenic Acid, 206 
Lincophos, 33 
Lipase, 17, 18 
Liposomes, 110 
Los Angeles County Milk 
Commission, 95 
Leukemia, 214 
Lysine, 71 
Lysozyme, 142 

M 

Macrophage, 144 
Malabsorption Syndrome, 160 
Mammary-Fetus, 134 
Margarine Cheese, 198 
Masai, 237, 238, 239, 259 



318 



Mathis Dairy, 29, 62, 64, 101, 
102, 104 

Mayo Foundation, 201 
McGovern Committee, 239 
Meadow Fres, 124 
Measless, 210 
Medical Milk Commission, 

5, 6, 57, 63, 64, 82, 85, 
86, 92, 299 
Milk Fat, 

16, 17, 38, 232, 251, 264 
Moss Soup, 227 
Mother Craft Nurses, 161, 165 
Multiple Sclerosis, 55 
Multiple Sclerosis Society, 211 
Muscle Cramps, 212 

N 

National Dairy Association, 
134 

National Cancer Institute, 240 
National Women's Health 
Network, 173 

Neonatal Hypocalcemia, 151 
Nestle, 172, 173 
Neurasthenics, 205 
New West, 93, 106 
Nickel, 189 

o 

Obesity, 45, 237, 279, 280, 
282, 294 

Oleomargarine, 304, 308, 309 
Omnivorism, 221 
Organo-phosphate, 33 
Osier, William, 201 
Osteoporosis 17, 281, 286 



The Raw Truth about Milk 



P 

Pasteur, 11, 12, 

Pelvic Inflamatory Disease, 
213 

Peroxidase, 18 
Phosphatase, 17, 18 
Phosphates, 17, 20 
P.I.D., 213 
Pineal Gland, 38 
Plasmalogen, 107 
Polymerization, 228 
Polysorbate, 262, 265, 266 
Polyunsaturated, 239 
Pork Fat, 195 
Posterior Pituitary, 132 
Premenstrual Syndrome, 206 
Preservative Effect, 83 
Progressive, The, 52 
Prolactin, 131 
Prostaglandin, 206 
Prostate Gland, 203 
Psoriasis, 203 

Q 

Q-Fever, 90, 92 

R 

Reader's Digest, 51 
Rhinitis, 160 

s 

Salmonella, 56, 99 
Salmonella Montevideo, 98 
Samburu, 236, 237, 241 
Scarsdale Diet, 17 



Index 



319 



Scurvy, 230, 231, 233, 234, 
235, 236 

Serenate Committee on 
Nutrition and Human 
Needs, 194 

Seventh Day Adventists, 225 
Sippy, 41, 211 
Skim Milk, x, 

38, 39, 40, 232, 240, 262 
Skyr, 270 
Soy Milk, 277 
Spore-forming bacteria, 297 
Standard of Identity, 262, 263 
Staphlococcus, 89 
Stearate, 229 
Stefansson, 229 
Steinman, 44, 45 
Steuve, Harold, 87 
Straus, Nathan, 12 
Sucking Reflex, 131 
Sudden Infant Death 
Syndrome, 42, 43 

T 

Testosterone, 111, 285 
Third World Working Group, 
172 

Tooth decay, 226, 227, 228 
Tuberculosis, 2, 5, 11, 14, 22, 
61, 62, 63, 75, 85, 202 
Typhoid Fever, 22, 50, 53, 

213 



U 

UHTMilk, 127 

Ulcerative Colitis, 154, 160, 266 

Ulcers, 41, 266 



Undulant Fever, 2, 11, 49, 

50, 51, 52, 53 

Unsaturated Fats, 71, 185, 228 

V 

Vegetable Fat, 229, 303, 307 
Vegetarianism, 221, 228, 229, 
243, 245, 246, 248 
Venison, 228 
Virus Infections, 211 
Vitamin A, 253, 309 
Vitamin B, 12 251 
Vitamin C, 13, 18, 35, 37, 

42, 71, 221, 233, 234, 235, 
236, 254, 271, 273 
Vitamin D, 17, 70 
Vogue Magazine, 60 
Vomiting, 160 

W 

Walrus Meat, 235 
Werner, Dr. Ben, 93 
Whey, 112, 262, 264 
Worms, 182, 255 
Wulzen Calcium Dystrophy 
Syndrome, 39 

X 

Xanthine Oxidase, 40, 42, 191 
XO, 109, 110, 191, 229, 286 

Y 

Yogurt, Kefir, and Koumiss, 
270, 273 

Z 

Zinc Binding Factor, 149 



You want to protect those you love from the 
health dangers the authorities aren't telling 
you about, and learn the incredible cures 
that they've scorned and ignored? 

Subscribe to the free Daily Dose updates 
"...the straight scoop about health, medici- 
ne, and politics." by sending an e-mail to 
real_sub@agoramail.net with the word 
"subscribe" in the subject line.